Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Your first point might mislead, I think. Treaties can be technically breached after falling into disuse or countries can notify parties that they will cancel all or part of the treaty in the expectation that the other party will go along with it. It is extraordinary to deliberately breach a live treaty and ignore remedies that already exist within it.
Consequences will be major I believe. I don't think the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU will alter people's perceptions.
Your last point is a good one. The reasons for the UK to go along with a Withdrawal Agreement are twofold: (1) It's a clean break to avoid arguments about residual obligations (2) it's a pay to play for a future relationship. Without it, the EU won't agree anything with the UK ever. However if you genuinely think that's a workable long term existence (which is neither Australian nor an arrangement) then maybe you don't need a Withdrawal Agreement.
Fuck them for shitting on this country’s reputation.
One of the reasons this country attracts so much business is our strong rule of law and an independent judiciary that can and does overrule the government when it breaks the law/acts ultra vires.
But today’s announcement and the plana to castrate the judiciary is going to screw this country so much.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
We can argue Labour has moved away from representing the poor as well (good grounds to agree) but it is wrong to say the Tories are the party of anyone but the rich
Are you 13?
The Tories exist for people who work for their own money.
People who work voted against leaving the EU, rather unsurprisingly.
I was a member when I believed the party would work for a society with opportunities for people like me (lower middle-class background, comprehensive school education and no University eduction etc.), but I left them when I realised that their populism would tear down those opportunities in favour of flags, bunting and bigotry.
I also find them hard to reconcile with any sort of Christian faith which is ironically something Theresa May bought home ("Go Home scumbag immigrants" is hard to reconcile with "Treat the foreigners amongst you well for you too were once foreigners in a land"), Johnson of course doesn't really redeem (!) the party on that score either.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is from this session of Parliament - not the last one.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
I think the biggest issue it creates is trust. The UK has knowingly signed a treaty it thinks is rubbish and is now unilaterally changing it because it was rubbish. As you say, it was maybe a better idea to not to sign it in the first place and just use repeal the ECA.
Oh, I think this is an attempt at tactics (let the EU see how serious we are!) that's gone wrong. And will probably have negative consequences that reach beyond Brexit.
1.It's bad for Northern Ireland Boris Johnson can't walk back on his plans to abrogate now, without causing an enormous problem with the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. It's creating another "stabbed in the back" myth.
On the other hand, if you do abrogate, and we walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, then it will create equally negative problems with the Nationalist community. Appeasing the Unionist community will be seen as more important than the Good Friday agreement.
The combination of these two factors makes a return to violence in the province more likely.
2. It's bad for our moral authority in the world We can't say to China, "hey! respect the treaty you signed over Hong Kong". Or we can, but it will look pretty hypocritical.
3. It isn't good for future trade agreements While it won't torpedo free trade deals with the likes of Japan, we will probably find that we'll be subject to more onerous conditions, and the remit of ISDS tribunals will be broader. (Who's to say that a UK government doesn't sign a free trade deal with Japan, and then introduce a requirement that all cars sold in the UK must be individually inspected. And sadly there are 100 inspectors for British made cars, but only one for Japanese?)
4. It creates a situation where the UK really does have to either fold or to take No Deal And this happens at a time when the UK has (again) wasted its time in failing to recreate the EU's existing trading agreements.
The newest development I've seen is people begin to question why the NHS is still shite at providing normal services. A friend's pregnant wife has just spent the night in hospital waiting to be seen by various experts. They are both sick with worry but no one will see them, they keep getting the same bullshit answers about COVID causing delays but the hospital is completely empty of patients.
I really don't understand what's going on now, it's never been this bad before.
Surely the efficiency of the NHS is at least as adversely affected as anywhere else by the need for social distancing and protective measures. Why would you expect otherwise?
My other half works in an NHS lab, and she says that the hassle of anti-Covid measures has pushed productivity through the floor.
She was the only patient when they arrived into A&E. It was completely empty. She's still waiting to be seen 10 hours later.
Might be over-optimistic, but. My wife developed and eye problem over the weekend. Saw the local optician Monday midday; he'd originally said he would be in this location until Thursday, and gave her a couple of alternative colleagues to contact. However, later rang back to say he'd be in at 12.30 and she could come. So she went, and he referred her to a more specialist colleague; we're about to set off for appointment with same.
Posted this at 0925 this morning, in response to complaints about the NHS.. Shortly after set off for Opthalmology Dept at local NHS Hospital, for a 1030 appointment. Outpatients was busy but not exceptionally so. She was seen, condition diagnosed, initial treatment given ......two or three investigations necessary, and arrangements made for the subsequent follow-up. We were out of the hospital shortly after 1pm and on our way home. She said that there was a bit of waiting, but at no time did she feel that 'nothing was happening'. We're not 'pleased', obviously that she's developed a permeant condition, but satisfied with what the NHS did for her, and the speed of action. Only downside was that I couldn't wait with her; had to sit in a separate area.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is from this session of Parliament - not the last one.
Doesn't change a thing. What Parliament has passed, Parliament can change.
The agreement was signed under duress last Parliament when we had no alternative and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. We implemented it and have spent months negotiating in good faith but the EU aren't negotiating in good faith.
We should walk away now. I think the numbers are there to do so now.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
And breaking an international treaty.
That is something a conservative should reject 100%
Also good luck to my friends in the UK Debt Management Office who have to sell UK debt with buyers now having to worry if the UK Government will retroactively change the terms.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's very amusing contrasting @Philip_Thompson's posts with the stirring words of his beloved Prime Minister in parliament on 2oth December, on the very subject of the awful deal signed under duress:
I also beg that we come together, as a new Parliament, to break the deadlock and, finally, to get Brexit done. Now is the moment, as we leave the European Union, to reunite our country, and allow the warmth and natural affection we all share for our European neighbours to find renewed expression in one great new national project of building a deep, special and democratically accountable partnership with those nations we are proud to call our closest friends. Because this Bill, and this juncture in our national story, must not be seen as a victory for one party over another or one faction over another; this is the time when we move on and discard the old labels of “leave” and “remain”. In fact, the very words seem tired to me as I speak them—as defunct as “big-enders” and “little-enders” or as “Montagues” and “Capulets” at the end of the play. Now is the time to act together as one reinvigorated nation, one United Kingdom, filled with renewed confidence in our national destiny and determined, at last, to take advantage of the opportunities that now lie before us. The whole purpose of our withdrawal agreement is to set this in motion and avoid any further delay. ... The Bill ensures that the implementation period must end on 31 December next year, with no possibility of an extension, and it paves the way for a new agreement on our future relationship with our European neighbours, based on an ambitious free trade agreement ... In this new era, our success will once again be achieved as one nation. This new deal in the Bill ensures that the United Kingdom will leave the EU whole and entire, with an unwavering dedication to Northern Ireland’s place in our Union. ... I believe that these arrangements serve the interests of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. It is a great deal for our whole country.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Your first point might mislead, I think. Treaties can be technically breached after falling into disuse or countries can notify parties that they will cancel all or part of the treaty in the expectation that the other party will go along with it. It is extraordinary to deliberately breach a live treaty and ignore remedies that already exist within it.
Consequences will be major I believe. I don't think the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU will alter people's perceptions.
Your last point is a good one. The reasons for the UK to go along with a Withdrawal Agreement are twofold: (1) It's a clean break to avoid arguments about residual obligations (2) it's a pay to play for a future relationship. Without it, the EU won't agree anything with the UK ever. However if you genuinely think that's a workable long term existence (which is neither Australian nor an arrangement) then maybe you don't need a Withdrawal Agreement.
But what about the border in the island of Ireland?
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I'm not a lot, just me. The government has already this week says "it is going to break the law" yesterday morning, "it is not going to break the law" yesterday afternoon and this afternoon "it is breaking the law in a limited way". It is only Tuesday.
Saying every possible combination is not being too honest. It is being manipulative and deceitful to try and get different people to believe different things.
Remarkably it is a tactic that has worked for 5 years now. Some people are easily deceived.
International law is more what you call guidelines than actual rules.
The EU doesn't respect it, why should we?
I thought you believed the UK was better than the EU? Or is it just Britons are better than Europeans?
I don't believe anyone is intrinsically better or worse than anyone else. Do you?
Yes.
So, at a personal level I wouldn't rate Hitler very highly.
And I have negative feelings about countries that torture their own citizens, or implement policies of apartheid or slavery, or sponsor terrorism. Or numerous other things that I think would classify you as a "bad actor".
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
So why didn’t he do just that with his 80 seat majority?
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
Oh be realistic.
I don't think anyone seriously thought the deal was absolutely perfect. But it was good enough for the year to get us independence and now we need to get through to finalising our future relationship.
As far as independence goes, ours is going rather smoothly so far.
You are acting as an idealist. I am acting as a realist. As a realist, I think people will understand that Brexit is as RCS put it a rather unique circumstance.
Bollocks. I am the realist: I’ve had a lifetime’s experience of seeing what happens when people, companies, organisations and governments refuse to comply with their legal obligations and agreements. The results are not pretty.
You are living in la-la-land if you think that behaviour like this does not have consequences.
Boris’s entire campaign was that this deal was brilliant. Had he been a bit more honest then he might not be in trouble now.
What people are seeing in Britain is a country which simply seems not to have understood what the implications of its decision mean in the real world, thrashing around trying to get itself out of holes it has got itself into unnecessarily, blaming others and pointlessly annoying friendly states.
Had Britain been a bit more realistic about the consequences of its decision and honest with itself about the trade offs to be made it would be in a very much better position than it is. But we are where we are and watching all this is providing superb entertainment so maybe this is one of the sunny uplands we were promised.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's actually worse than that - it's perfectly fine in Philip's eyes to renege on a key (if not the main) part of the Tory Party's manifesto..
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
I think the biggest issue it creates is trust. The UK has knowingly signed a treaty it thinks is rubbish and is now unilaterally changing it because it was rubbish. As you say, it was maybe a better idea to not to sign it in the first place and just use repeal the ECA.
Oh, I think this is an attempt at tactics (let the EU see how serious we are!) that's gone wrong. And will probably have negative consequences that reach beyond Brexit.
1.It's bad for Northern Ireland Boris Johnson can't walk back on his plans to abrogate now, without causing an enormous problem with the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. It's creating another "stabbed in the back" myth.
On the other hand, if you do abrogate, and we walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, then it will create equally negative problems with the Nationalist community. Appeasing the Unionist community will be seen as more important than the Good Friday agreement.
The combination of these two factors makes a return to violence in the province more likely.
2. It's bad for our moral authority in the world We can't say to China, "hey! respect the treaty you signed over Hong Kong". Or we can, but it will look pretty hypocritical.
3. It isn't good for future trade agreements While it won't torpedo free trade deals with the likes of Japan, we will probably find that we'll be subject to more onerous conditions, and the remit of ISDS tribunals will be broader. (Who's to say that a UK government doesn't sign a free trade deal with Japan, and then introduce a requirement that all cars sold in the UK must be individually inspected. And sadly there are 100 inspectors for British made cars, but only one for Japanese?)
4. It creates a situation where the UK really does have to either fold or to take No Deal And this happens at a time when the UK has (again) wasted its time in failing to recreate the EU's existing trading agreements.
An excellent concise analysis of why Johnson rowing back on the WA is a bad idea.
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is from this session of Parliament - not the last one.
Doesn't change a thing. What Parliament has passed, Parliament can change.
The agreement was signed under duress last Parliament when we had no alternative and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. We implemented it and have spent months negotiating in good faith but the EU aren't negotiating in good faith.
We should walk away now. I think the numbers are there to do so now.
Boris Johnson campaigned in the last election on the basis of signing the Withdrawal Agreement. It was signed into law in January of this year.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
So why didn’t he do just that with his 80 seat majority?
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
Sorry is this Blair or Johnson ?
Oh dear. There's tired. There's exhausted. And then there's defending Johnson by talking about Tony Blair.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
An individual who chooses ot break the law puts himself at risk. A government that breaks the law puts its country and its citizens at risk. This is not a game of Dungeons and Dragons.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
And the election where that will be tested is four years away. I wonder how many 'traditional' Conservative MP's will decide that this sort of chicanery is not the reason they went into politics.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's actually worse than that - it's perfectly fine in Philip's eyes to renege on an agreement you signed earlier this year...
Is Philip just throwing chaff around here, for himself as much as anyone else? He adored Boris's oven-ready deal and described it as a work of genius. The fact that friend Boris now regards it as a pile of dung and is desperate to rewrite it might not be something he wants to confront.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
Of course when you get to self-define what "good" means this enables a whole lot of very evil acts to take place doesn't it?
Soviet show trials - Lawful Good to Stalin, Unlawful Evil to all observers.
Very few people self-define as bad and so the law is essential in setting a common standard. Most people who break laws thing they have a good reason: their victims think otherwise.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is from this session of Parliament - not the last one.
Doesn't change a thing. What Parliament has passed, Parliament can change.
The agreement was signed under duress last Parliament when we had no alternative and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. We implemented it and have spent months negotiating in good faith but the EU aren't negotiating in good faith.
We should walk away now. I think the numbers are there to do so now.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
An individual who chooses ot break the law puts himself at risk. A government that breaks the law puts its country and its citizens at risk. This is not a game of Dungeons and Dragons.
Government's break international law all the time. The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed. Tory and Lib Dem MPs happily voted that through knowing full well it broke the law because they considered it the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
It's back dating
The actual plot of date of death looks like this -
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's actually worse than that - it's perfectly fine in Philip's eyes to renege on an agreement you signed earlier this year...
Is Philip just throwing chaff around here, for himself as much as anyone else? He adored Boris's oven-ready deal and described it as a work of genius. The fact that friend Boris now regards it as a pile of dung and is desperate to rewrite it might not be something he wants to confront.
It makes you wonder who does the thinking out of those two. There certainly isn't a principle to be foound between them.
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
So when Hitler reclaimed territories lost under the Versailles Treaty, he should have just said he was breaking it in a limited way in order to avoid unleashing German nationalism?
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
An individual who chooses ot break the law puts himself at risk. A government that breaks the law puts its country and its citizens at risk. This is not a game of Dungeons and Dragons.
Government's break international law all the time. The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed. Tory and Lib Dem MPs happily voted that through knowing full well it broke the law because they considered it the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
' The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed.' How? In what way?
Why the shock? The govt was hosing money around, it was bound to attract liars, crooks and cleverdicks.
And those are just the friends of Dom ......
That's where the government is guilty. There was always going to be a certain amount of fraud by liars and crooks in a largely honesty-based system, but most people are well-meaning and would act honestly, so long as they believed most others were doing so. If, however, you have an atmosphere in which people believe everyone is out for themselves, then there is little incentive to act honestly, and the system breaks down. This is why it was so critical for the government to lead by example.
In other words, there has been a completely normal amount of fraud we would expect to see when the Government is giving out free money, but you're fishing around for a spurious reason to blame it all on Doris (my portmanteau word for Dom and Boris), and you've settled on the claim that they have 'created an atmosphere' that has turned previously honest business owners into crooks. That's weak.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
Government's break international law all the time. The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed. Tory and Lib Dem MPs happily voted that through knowing full well it broke the law because they considered it the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
I'm at a loss as to what you think the right thing to do is? It's clear that you don't care about the UK breaking International Law and ignoring a treaty that was the core part of Boris's manifesto..
But what exactly does breaking the treaty actually fix? As you clearly understand it well enough to see why it is so important.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is from this session of Parliament - not the last one.
Doesn't change a thing. What Parliament has passed, Parliament can change.
The agreement was signed under duress last Parliament when we had no alternative and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. We implemented it and have spent months negotiating in good faith but the EU aren't negotiating in good faith.
We should walk away now. I think the numbers are there to do so now.
“Under duress”.
Just listen to yourself.
You don't think there was any duress last year while the negotiations were going on?
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
An individual who chooses ot break the law puts himself at risk. A government that breaks the law puts its country and its citizens at risk. This is not a game of Dungeons and Dragons.
Government's break international law all the time. The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed. Tory and Lib Dem MPs happily voted that through knowing full well it broke the law because they considered it the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
I thought the Finance Act 2013 was amended at the last minute to avoid us accidentally breaking our agreement with Switzerland.
Boris Johnson campaigned (and won handsomely) on the premise that he had negotiated an “oven-ready” Brexit deal that will enable us “get Brexit done”.
Now @Philip_Thompson is trying to convince us that the deal was signed under duress and was actually sh*t?
If that so, then Boris Johnson’s entire campaign was a lie. There’s no mandate for this.
The new line is that everyone knows he's an inveterate liar, but voted for him anyway. Or something.
And just to remind the staunch Tories on here of their idol's words... ...Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make...
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
It's back dating
The actual plot of date of death looks like this -
That graph is rather deceptive when you take into account the fact that later dates will have more as yet unreported deaths than earlier dates. If that graph is flat, then deaths must, in reality, be increasing.
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
So when Hitler reclaimed territories lost under the Versailles Treaty, he should have just said he was breaking it in a limited way in order to avoid unleashing German nationalism?
That sums up the irony of Brexit completely: "we need to pander to these prejudiced people a bit because if we didn't they'd get annoyed and then we'd have to pander to them more".
Missing the point that this lot wants all of Alsace, Lorraine, the Sudetenland, Poland, European Russia and a racially pure state: giving them Alsace won't stop them wanting the rest.
Just to be clear I didn't kick-off the comparisons to Nazi Germany so don't blame me its gotten this far.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's actually worse than that - it's perfectly fine in Philip's eyes to renege on a key (if not the main) part of the Tory Party's manifesto..
Which is why I said a few days ago that Philip is an anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarians have respect for the law - anarchists have none.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's actually worse than that - it's perfectly fine in Philip's eyes to renege on an agreement you signed earlier this year...
Is Philip just throwing chaff around here, for himself as much as anyone else? He adored Boris's oven-ready deal and described it as a work of genius. The fact that friend Boris now regards it as a pile of dung and is desperate to rewrite it might not be something he wants to confront.
It makes you wonder who does the thinking out of those two. There certainly isn't a principle to be foound between them.
If Boris says its a great deal again come October (and he might) then his supporters will agree with him that its a great deal and claim that saying it was a terrible deal under duress was a masterful negotiating tactic!
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is from this session of Parliament - not the last one.
Doesn't change a thing. What Parliament has passed, Parliament can change.
The agreement was signed under duress last Parliament when we had no alternative and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. We implemented it and have spent months negotiating in good faith but the EU aren't negotiating in good faith.
We should walk away now. I think the numbers are there to do so now.
“Under duress”.
Just listen to yourself.
You don't think there was any duress last year while the negotiations were going on?
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
Sorry but where have you been these past few years?
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
Not yet, but give it a few days. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start taking action now instead of repeating the mistakes we made at the start of the first wave?
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
It's actually worse than that - it's perfectly fine in Philip's eyes to renege on a key (if not the main) part of the Tory Party's manifesto..
Which is why I said a few days ago that Philip is an anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarians have respect for the law - anarchists have none.
I have respect for the law, I just don't believe it is the be all and end all. Furthermore
Libertarians believe in people doing what they want so long as it doesn't harm others. Anarchists believe in doing what they want.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
It's back dating
The actual plot of date of death looks like this -
That graph is rather deceptive when you take into account the fact that later dates will have more as yet unreported deaths than earlier dates. If that graph is flat, then deaths must, in reality, be increasing.
Most of the catchup for the weekend happens today and tomorrow.
At these low levels, the numbers bounce around a great deal. One swallow, summers etc. We need more points of data.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
I am astonished at your attitude on this and I cannot accept this is remotely excusable
Why?
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
Your philosophy is that you believe it is OK to break the law?
Yes at times, if you're prepared to accept the consequences for doing so. I supported the Bristol protesters pulling down the statue earlier this year too.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912 kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
An individual who chooses ot break the law puts himself at risk. A government that breaks the law puts its country and its citizens at risk. This is not a game of Dungeons and Dragons.
Government's break international law all the time. The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed. Tory and Lib Dem MPs happily voted that through knowing full well it broke the law because they considered it the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
How were the terms of a treaty the UK had previously signed deliberately and knowingly broken in 2013?
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
So when Hitler reclaimed territories lost under the Versailles Treaty, he should have just said he was breaking it in a limited way in order to avoid unleashing German nationalism?
That is a deliberate and wilful misunderstanding of where we are.
I wonder what will be actually said in Parliament tomorrow? I wonder if there'll be a U turn, and all this sound and fury is being generated to hide something else.
... What people are seeing in Britain is a country which simply seems not to have understood what the implications of its decision mean in the real world, thrashing around trying to get itself out of holes it has got itself into unnecessarily, blaming others and pointlessly annoying friendly states. ...
Going forward, the best thing Britain can do is find a way to blame all this on Boris, the "conservatives" (aka Bluekip) and their supporters and hope that whoever is next in govt can make sure blame stick and make some form of reparations.
Basically, start to rebuild the trust which the UK used to be famous for.
Government's break international law all the time. The Coalition government in 2013 deliberately and knowingly broke the law with the Finance Act that it passed. Tory and Lib Dem MPs happily voted that through knowing full well it broke the law because they considered it the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
I'm at a loss as to what you think the right thing to do is? It's clear that you don't care about the UK breaking International Law and ignoring a treaty that was the core part of Boris's manifesto..
But what exactly does breaking the treaty actually fix? As you clearly understand it well enough to see why it is so important.
As I understand it (and I might be wrong) the EU are intending/threatening to abuse the NI Protocol as a means to get control of what they call "state aid" by the back door, even if there is no agreement in the negotiations.
That is an abuse and needs ruling out. It is entirely appropriate IMO to say no to that and if that means "tidying up" (breaking) the law to do so then so be it. We are a sovereign country that can set its own rules.
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
Don't be ridiculous. If Boris was willing to extend then the EU would have zero reason to compromise and nothing would ever get done.
Far better to either have both parties compromise if they can, or if not just walk away and wipe the slate clean.
But he didn’t just walk away. He negotiated a brilliant deal for Britain and campaigned on that basis at the GE. He then passed the “oven ready” Brexit deal.
Now he/you are saying “actually that deal was sh*te”?
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
Don't be ridiculous. If Boris was willing to extend then the EU would have zero reason to compromise and nothing would ever get done.
Far better to either have both parties compromise if they can, or if not just walk away and wipe the slate clean.
But he didn’t just walk away. He negotiated a brilliant deal for Britain and campaigned on that basis at the GE. He then passed the “oven ready” Brexit deal.
Now he/you are saying “actually that deal was sh*te”?
No, the deal was good enough for the past year. Now its time to move on.
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
A total misunderstanding of the politics of Britain. Let's say they got rid of Boris and called May back to negotiate some kind of client state agreement. A woman who took the tories to 17 per cent in the polls.
Precisely where do you think that would leave the conservative party? A political corpse floating in the water, that's where.
They could count on one thing over the next few years. Annihilation. And replacement by something much, much more radical.
So if you want to make Nigel Farage's day, just carry on as you are.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
Are you Tony Blair?
Did international law stop Blair from doing what he wanted?
International law is a polite fiction.
"International law" here is meaningless. There is no need to refer to it in this vague way, as I see many critics of the government doing. If someone breaks a contract, we don't say that they "broke contract law", we talk about the specifics of the contract that they broke, and the possible remedies.
Voters and MPs may, however, be curious as to why the government wants to break a treaty that it enthusiastically promoted to the nation as a centrepiece of the last general election campaign. Either the government didn't know that the deal was a dud, or did know and decided that it was best to pretend otherwise.
I wonder what will be actually said in Parliament tomorrow? I wonder if there'll be a U turn, and all this sound and fury is being generated to hide something else.
If there is a U-turn, it will be interesting to see if PT also U-turns on here
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
Sorry but where have you been these past few years?
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
Yep, as ever, it's not about the country, it's about the Tory party.
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
A total misunderstanding of the politics of Britain. Let's say they got rid of Boris and called May back to negotiate some kind of client state agreement. A woman who took the tories to 17 per cent in the polls.
Precisely where do you think that would leave the conservative party? A political corpse floating in the water, that's where.
They could count on one thing over the next few years. Annihilation. And replacement by something much, much more radical.
So if you want to make Nigel Farage's day, just carry on as you are.
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
Sorry but where have you been these past few years?
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
Yep, as ever, it's not about the country, it's about the Tory party.
It doesn't even serve the interests of the Conservative party, in anything other than the shallowest short-term sense.
Contrarian is right on this one; to cave in on Brexit will probably unleash all kinds of furies on the party the moment the cave-in happens. But failing to cave in, ploughing on to No Deal will probably unleash all kinds of furies on the party the moment the consequent shock hits.
If I were them, I wouldn't have started from here.
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
Sorry but where have you been these past few years?
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
Yep, as ever, it's not about the country, it's about the Tory party.
correct, and Boris could, I guess, if he wanted, do a Peel and sink his party 'for the good of Britain'
I'm really not sure this time though, it would ever recover, such is Boris's bargain with the electorate.
What I do think is it would be replaced by something much more radical. And semi=permanently.
And that would not be good for anybody.
You can all them fruitcakes and closet racists if you want. But there is no doubting that there are millions of them. Many millions. And they know what they want.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
Are you Tony Blair?
Did international law stop Blair from doing what he wanted?
International law is a polite fiction.
"International law" here is meaningless. There is no need to refer to it in this vague way, as I see many critics of the government doing. If someone breaks a contract, we don't say that they "broke contract law", we talk about the specifics of the contract that they broke, and the possible remedies.
Voters and MPs may, however, be curious as to why the government wants to break a treaty that it enthusiastically promoted to the nation as a centrepiece of the last general election campaign. Either the government didn't know that the deal was a dud, or did know and decided that it was best to pretend otherwise.
Which of those two options looks least worst? Both options make Boris and Cummings look like idiots, the latter just adds replaces gross incompetency with duplicity
Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
Sorry but where have you been these past few years?
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
Yep, as ever, it's not about the country, it's about the Tory party.
correct, and Boris could, I guess, if he wanted, do a Peel and sink his party 'for the good of Britain'
I'm really not sure this time though, it would ever recover, such is Boris's bargain with the electorate.
What I do think is it would be replaced by something much more radical. And semi=permanently.
And that would not be good for anybody.
You can all them fruitcakes and closet racists if you want. But there is no doubting that there are millions of them. Many millions. And they know what they want.
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
A total misunderstanding of the politics of Britain. Let's say they got rid of Boris and called May back to negotiate some kind of client state agreement. A woman who took the tories to 17 per cent in the polls.
Precisely where do you think that would leave the conservative party? A political corpse floating in the water, that's where.
They could count on one thing over the next few years. Annihilation. And replacement by something much, much more radical.
So if you want to make Nigel Farage's day, just carry on as you are.
The government is carrying out Farage’s policies.
To some extent.
On many issues, Farage would be well to the right of Boris and co. Just the other day he called these tories a bunch of metro liberals.
He would be much more radical. He might not ever get into government. But I don;t think there's any doubt a revived BP would be pretty powerful.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
It's back dating
The actual plot of date of death looks like this -
That graph is rather deceptive when you take into account the fact that later dates will have more as yet unreported deaths than earlier dates. If that graph is flat, then deaths must, in reality, be increasing.
Most of the catchup for the weekend happens today and tomorrow.
At these low levels, the numbers bounce around a great deal. One swallow, summers etc. We need more points of data.
Oh God, we're going to do it again, aren't we? Dither as the numbers increase until forced into drastic action as the death toll grows inexorably. Despite the early warnings, and despite the data from other countries.
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
Don't be ridiculous. If Boris was willing to extend then the EU would have zero reason to compromise and nothing would ever get done.
Far better to either have both parties compromise if they can, or if not just walk away and wipe the slate clean.
But he didn’t just walk away. He negotiated a brilliant deal for Britain and campaigned on that basis at the GE. He then passed the “oven ready” Brexit deal.
Now he/you are saying “actually that deal was sh*te”?
No, the deal was good enough for the past year. Now its time to move on.
LOL.
"Buy 31 January 2020, nothing to pay until Jan 1st 2021" says the EU. The UK go for the deal. Then in August the UK reads the fine print TICs "Were not going to pay " it cries. The EU replies, but this is what you signed. UK: "the deal was good enough for the past year. Now its time to move on"
Comments
It was my old normal, so fair enough.
Consequences will be major I believe. I don't think the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU will alter people's perceptions.
Your last point is a good one. The reasons for the UK to go along with a Withdrawal Agreement are twofold: (1) It's a clean break to avoid arguments about residual obligations (2) it's a pay to play for a future relationship. Without it, the EU won't agree anything with the UK ever. However if you genuinely think that's a workable long term existence (which is neither Australian nor an arrangement) then maybe you don't need a Withdrawal Agreement.
Generally speaking, it's the places with the most unhealthy populations with the highest numbers, which is what you'd expect.
International law is more what you call guidelines than actual rules.
The EU doesn't respect it, why should we?
Fuck them for shitting on this country’s reputation.
One of the reasons this country attracts so much business is our strong rule of law and an independent judiciary that can and does overrule the government when it breaks the law/acts ultra vires.
But today’s announcement and the plana to castrate the judiciary is going to screw this country so much.
Well done Boris and the Brexiteers.
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Its entirely consistent with my philosophy.
I was prepared to accept the UK just walking away last year remember?
I also find them hard to reconcile with any sort of Christian faith which is ironically something Theresa May bought home ("Go Home scumbag immigrants" is hard to reconcile with "Treat the foreigners amongst you well for you too were once foreigners in a land"), Johnson of course doesn't really redeem (!) the party on that score either.
1.It's bad for Northern Ireland
Boris Johnson can't walk back on his plans to abrogate now, without causing an enormous problem with the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. It's creating another "stabbed in the back" myth.
On the other hand, if you do abrogate, and we walk away from the Withdrawal Agreement, then it will create equally negative problems with the Nationalist community. Appeasing the Unionist community will be seen as more important than the Good Friday agreement.
The combination of these two factors makes a return to violence in the province more likely.
2. It's bad for our moral authority in the world
We can't say to China, "hey! respect the treaty you signed over Hong Kong". Or we can, but it will look pretty hypocritical.
3. It isn't good for future trade agreements
While it won't torpedo free trade deals with the likes of Japan, we will probably find that we'll be subject to more onerous conditions, and the remit of ISDS tribunals will be broader. (Who's to say that a UK government doesn't sign a free trade deal with Japan, and then introduce a requirement that all cars sold in the UK must be individually inspected. And sadly there are 100 inspectors for British made cars, but only one for Japanese?)
4. It creates a situation where the UK really does have to either fold or to take No Deal
And this happens at a time when the UK has (again) wasted its time in failing to recreate the EU's existing trading agreements.
She said that there was a bit of waiting, but at no time did she feel that 'nothing was happening'.
We're not 'pleased', obviously that she's developed a permeant condition, but satisfied with what the NHS did for her, and the speed of action.
Only downside was that I couldn't wait with her; had to sit in a separate area.
The agreement was signed under duress last Parliament when we had no alternative and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. We implemented it and have spent months negotiating in good faith but the EU aren't negotiating in good faith.
We should walk away now. I think the numbers are there to do so now.
That is something a conservative should reject 100%
Boris has gone too far - time for him to go
I also beg that we come together, as a new Parliament, to break the deadlock and, finally, to get Brexit done. Now is the moment, as we leave the European Union, to reunite our country, and allow the warmth and natural affection we all share for our European neighbours to find renewed expression in one great new national project of building a deep, special and democratically accountable partnership with those nations we are proud to call our closest friends. Because this Bill, and this juncture in our national story, must not be seen as a victory for one party over another or one faction over another; this is the time when we move on and discard the old labels of “leave” and “remain”. In fact, the very words seem tired to me as I speak them—as defunct as “big-enders” and “little-enders” or as “Montagues” and “Capulets” at the end of the play. Now is the time to act together as one reinvigorated nation, one United Kingdom, filled with renewed confidence in our national destiny and determined, at last, to take advantage of the opportunities that now lie before us. The whole purpose of our withdrawal agreement is to set this in motion and avoid any further delay.
...
The Bill ensures that the implementation period must end on 31 December next year, with no possibility of an extension, and it paves the way for a new agreement on our future relationship with our European neighbours, based on an ambitious free trade agreement
...
In this new era, our success will once again be achieved as one nation. This new deal in the Bill ensures that the United Kingdom will leave the EU whole and entire, with an unwavering dedication to Northern Ireland’s place in our Union.
...
I believe that these arrangements serve the interests of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. It is a great deal for our whole country.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-12-20/debates/FE5B9762-F298-457B-8306-98D2D1D3519B/EuropeanUnion(WithdrawalAgreement)Bill
I know, I know, I'm shooting fish in a barrel...
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Saying every possible combination is not being too honest. It is being manipulative and deceitful to try and get different people to believe different things.
Remarkably it is a tactic that has worked for 5 years now. Some people are easily deceived.
Headline - 8
7 days - 8
Yesterday - 3
UK all settings, 28 day cutoff -
So, at a personal level I wouldn't rate Hitler very highly.
And I have negative feelings about countries that torture their own citizens, or implement policies of apartheid or slavery, or sponsor terrorism. Or numerous other things that I think would classify you as a "bad actor".
You are living in la-la-land if you think that behaviour like this does not have consequences.
Boris’s entire campaign was that this deal was brilliant. Had he been a bit more honest then he might not be in trouble now.
What people are seeing in Britain is a country which simply seems not to have understood what the implications of its decision mean in the real world, thrashing around trying to get itself out of holes it has got itself into unnecessarily, blaming others and pointlessly annoying friendly states.
Had Britain been a bit more realistic about the consequences of its decision and honest with itself about the trade offs to be made it would be in a very much better position than it is. But we are where we are and watching all this is providing superb entertainment so maybe this is one of the sunny uplands we were promised.
This is what I had to say on the subject back in June in reply to Kinabalu, nothing has changed.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2896912/#Comment_2896912
kinabalu: I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Me: Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
https://www.deviantart.com/spider-bat700/art/Nolanverse-Alignment-Chart-737635019
Now @Philip_Thompson is trying to convince us that the deal was signed under duress and was actually sh*t?
If that so, then Boris Johnson’s entire campaign was a lie. There’s no mandate for this.
Soviet show trials - Lawful Good to Stalin, Unlawful Evil to all observers.
Very few people self-define as bad and so the law is essential in setting a common standard. Most people who break laws thing they have a good reason: their victims think otherwise.
Just listen to yourself.
The right thing to do is more important than "international law".
The actual plot of date of death looks like this -
How? In what way?
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths
But what exactly does breaking the treaty actually fix? As you clearly understand it well enough to see why it is so important.
But I could be wrong.
And just to remind the staunch Tories on here of their idol's words...
...Britain does not break Treaties.
It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make...
Missing the point that this lot wants all of Alsace, Lorraine, the Sudetenland, Poland, European Russia and a racially pure state: giving them Alsace won't stop them wanting the rest.
Just to be clear I didn't kick-off the comparisons to Nazi Germany so don't blame me its gotten this far.
International law is a polite fiction.
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
Libertarians believe in people doing what they want so long as it doesn't harm others.
Anarchists believe in doing what they want.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
At these low levels, the numbers bounce around a great deal. One swallow, summers etc. We need more points of data.
Far better to either have both parties compromise if they can, or if not just walk away and wipe the slate clean.
Basically, start to rebuild the trust which the UK used to be famous for.
That is an abuse and needs ruling out. It is entirely appropriate IMO to say no to that and if that means "tidying up" (breaking) the law to do so then so be it. We are a sovereign country that can set its own rules.
Now he/you are saying “actually that deal was sh*te”?
Precisely where do you think that would leave the conservative party? A political corpse floating in the water, that's where.
They could count on one thing over the next few years. Annihilation. And replacement by something much, much more radical.
So if you want to make Nigel Farage's day, just carry on as you are.
Voters and MPs may, however, be curious as to why the government wants to break a treaty that it enthusiastically promoted to the nation as a centrepiece of the last general election campaign. Either the government didn't know that the deal was a dud, or did know and decided that it was best to pretend otherwise.
Perhaps replaced by a competent govt that keeps its word and does not act like a petulant half-wit?
Contrarian is right on this one; to cave in on Brexit will probably unleash all kinds of furies on the party the moment the cave-in happens. But failing to cave in, ploughing on to No Deal will probably unleash all kinds of furies on the party the moment the consequent shock hits.
If I were them, I wouldn't have started from here.
I'm really not sure this time though, it would ever recover, such is Boris's bargain with the electorate.
What I do think is it would be replaced by something much more radical. And semi=permanently.
And that would not be good for anybody.
You can all them fruitcakes and closet racists if you want. But there is no doubting that there are millions of them. Many millions. And they know what they want.
On many issues, Farage would be well to the right of Boris and co. Just the other day he called these tories a bunch of metro liberals.
He would be much more radical. He might not ever get into government. But I don;t think there's any doubt a revived BP would be pretty powerful.
What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander. Nick Clegg, David Cameron etc all thought it was fine seven years ago so what is so horrible now?
But did you call for David Cameron to resign when the Finance Act overrode international law in 2013?
"Buy 31 January 2020, nothing to pay until Jan 1st 2021" says the EU.
The UK go for the deal. Then in August the UK reads the fine print TICs
"Were not going to pay " it cries.
The EU replies, but this is what you signed.
UK: "the deal was good enough for the past year. Now its time to move on"