Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
We signed it in bad faith, I'm sorry to say. No other conclusion is supportable imo given subsequent events.
The EU demanded sequencing that the NIP would be revisited once the final trade deal was done.
Who was acting in bad faith?
Us, as explained. Pointless trying to argue otherwise.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.
A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.
The Guardian is the only newspaper available at Glastonbury, they have little stands that sell it throughout the weekend but the only way they seem to be able to flog them is free tote bags with every paper. As soon as the tote bags run out the sales dry up.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The pedant in me would say yes they are, but I shall reign him in for once, because I do see your point. Why not, I wonder? Is it because they will be growing up culturally western - western schools, mainly mixing with other westerners etc - in a way which wouldn't happen if you were expat in, say, Australia, where much more (all?) of their growing up would be in a thoroughly Australian context? I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
I think it’s to do with the temporary nature of expatriate life, as opposed to permanent immigration.
Unless your parent is Emirati, you’ll never get a passport from them (bar a few asylum seekers and extraordinary individuals), you’re always seen as being from your “home country”, even if you’ve lived your whole life here.
Compare to most Western countries, where there is a path to citizenship for the majority of immigrants.
I certainly know a few white Kenyans and Rhodesians Zimbabweans, they do indeed think of themselves as African.
I have "emigrated" to Scotland. I am not planning to permanently live in any other country. My kids are going to school here. I am paying my taxes here. I ran for election here and have been involved in the community council as well. I am running several small businesses here and am advising another.
I may be of English heritage, but I am intending to be accepted as Scottish as soon as they will have me.
That's all very laudable Rochdale. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away meaning from the word explaining where you were born and raised - which is an interesting thing in itself. But perhaps we need a separate word here.
My (Scottish) grandmother always used to talk about 'when we were staying in (Arran/Bury/Cyprus/wherever)' rather than 'when were were living in' - I don't know whether this is a Scottish turn of phrase or simply reflected her rather peripatetic life, that she never felt like anywhere was permanently 'home'. But perhaps there are three levels of this:
I am staying in x (I am living in x, I'm not necessarily from x and I don't know how long I will live here) I live in y (I have identified y as my home - Scotland, now, in your case, or specifically your locality in Nort hEast Scotland) I am z-ish (I was born and raised in z; z is the place which made me).
This works at local level as well as national level. For my teens and twenties, I lived in a variety of places, none of which I would describe myself as being 'from', and none of which I expected to make my home. It would have been useful to be able to say 'I am staying in Nottingham' (say) as well as 'I am from Stockport'. EDIT: So in the Tony Blair example, we can distinguish between 'born and raised/educated in Scotland' from 'has chosen to make England his home'.
I hear you, but it prompts the question about to what we are referring? Nationality? Ethnicity? Citizenship? Culturally?
I was born in Ashton-Under-Lyne which makes me a Lancastrian by birth. Grew up in Rochdale (hence the handle). But have lived longer in Yorkshire than I did in Lancashire yet didn't consider myself a Yorkshireman.
So I'm not ever culturally going to be Scottish even if I live here til they carry me out in a box. I don't sound Scottish, or share Scottish heritage. But I am a citizen of Scotland, and should they become independent would become a Scottish national.
And I think that is the difference - you can live somewhere and consider yourself not to be a citizen of there, or you can move somewhere and be adopted by it without losing your origins. America does this well - plenty of x-American groups where the x can be during their lifetime or their great great great grandparent's lifetime.
The question to which I am principally referring to is where were you hewn? Where made you? Your parents might have been from Pakistan, say, but you were born in England, grew up in English schools with English friends doing English things watching English telly - you are English. You live in London but were born and grew up in Manchester - you are Mancunian. And so on. I'd like to have a word which we all agree on which means that, because it's interesting.
But I recognise there are ambiguities (were you hewn in Ashton or Rochdale?) and I also recognise we don't all mean the same thing by the words we use.
As an aside, an anecdote: my first family holiday with my parents was to the Isle of Arran, when I was (I think) one. My mother was born on the Isle of Arran, and considers herself Scottish, though she moved away to Lancashire at the age of about three months. We were staying on a farm, and when our hosts found she was born on the island, she was considered more of an islander than our hostess, who was not born on the island but had moved there at the age of two. This was of course a purely honorary position; since our hostess knew everyone on the island, and how it worked, and faced no hostility from being an 'outsider', while my mother had not been there for over 20 years. But nonetheless, place of birth was given a surprising amount of importance.
Test match could be a classic. In the brave new world of McCullum and Stokes, I think England will go for it, and keep going for it until/unless they lose 4/5 wickets. All four results are possible. I'm not betting, because it really could go either way. And, finally, a test match lasts a full five days - amazing.
Test match could be a classic. In the brave new world of McCullum and Stokes, I think England will go for it, and keep going for it until/unless they lose 4/5 wickets. All four results are possible. I'm not betting, because it really could go either way. And, finally, a test match lasts a full five days - amazing.
I'm jealous of the crowd at Trent Bridge, what a fascinating day to have, and for free too. Hope they get a full day of Cricket ahead of them.
Can't see this Test as ending other than in a draw now.
Englands batting is so brittle this could be over by tea
You mean we ought to think about starting the rain dance?
Looks that way. Can’t see us making the runs, 4 an over. Maybe try and smash it around for half an hour, then settle down, but doing that inevitably leads to losing too many wickets.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
We signed it in bad faith, I'm sorry to say. No other conclusion is supportable imo given subsequent events.
The EU demanded sequencing that the NIP would be revisited once the final trade deal was done.
Who was acting in bad faith?
Us, as explained. Pointless trying to argue otherwise.
Ah of course. The sainted EU is perfect and can't possibly do anything wrong.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.
A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.
The Guardian is the only newspaper available at Glastonbury, they have little stands that sell it throughout the weekend but the only way they seem to be able to flog them is free tote bags with every paper. As soon as the tote bags run out the sales dry up.
Young people don't buy newspapers shock. My two have never bought one in their lives. Nor would they ever dream of picking up a free one.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
Oh dear, go spend some of your universal credit on a dummy tit. Your febrile imagination that others are like you is pathetic. A sad little person to be pitied if you were not so obnoxious and odious. PS greetings from spain, but very hot too so need to be careful I don't get as red faced as you
Have a nice time BTW. It must be frustrating not being able to get a "full Scottish breakfast" there in Benidorm, but I guess The English one will do if sloshed down with a few pints of lager. Keep a hanky on that bald head of yours and try not to get too cross with the locals when they don't understand your rantings. They assume you are English by the way!
Hmm, more than a bit racist to imply that Malky, being a Scot, must therefore demand a daily fried slice and clootie dumpling (as if it was something reprehensible) with a few litres of lager. you have at least refrained from coming out with the deep fried Mars Bars beloved of the tourists in Edinburgh.
Withdraw that please. I will be accused of being racist by anyone. That you come to the assistance of this obnoxious bore demeans you, but accusing me of racism is not something I will accept. My characterisation of the pillock was nothing to do with him being Scottish, simply of him being parochial and nationalist. I think you knew that.
I am happy to accept your assurance that you are not racist and that you had no intention of being racist in deploying what are standard anti-Scottish racist tropes - high fat foods, large amounts of alcohol - in your comments.
I am not asking for your acceptance of anything I am asking for an apology for your slur.
Okay, I'll start again. I am happy to apologise for suggesting that you might be racist in the intent of your posting. This was unfair.
Accepted.
There is debate on here, and even trolling or perhaps incredulity at someone's opinion that is all just part of the fun of being on a political debating forum. Accusing someone of being racist is not something anyone should have to put up with.
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The pedant in me would say yes they are, but I shall reign him in for once, because I do see your point. Why not, I wonder? Is it because they will be growing up culturally western - western schools, mainly mixing with other westerners etc - in a way which wouldn't happen if you were expat in, say, Australia, where much more (all?) of their growing up would be in a thoroughly Australian context? I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
I think it’s to do with the temporary nature of expatriate life, as opposed to permanent immigration.
Unless your parent is Emirati, you’ll never get a passport from them (bar a few asylum seekers and extraordinary individuals), you’re always seen as being from your “home country”, even if you’ve lived your whole life here.
Compare to most Western countries, where there is a path to citizenship for the majority of immigrants.
I certainly know a few white Kenyans and Rhodesians Zimbabweans, they do indeed think of themselves as African.
I have "emigrated" to Scotland. I am not planning to permanently live in any other country. My kids are going to school here. I am paying my taxes here. I ran for election here and have been involved in the community council as well. I am running several small businesses here and am advising another.
I may be of English heritage, but I am intending to be accepted as Scottish as soon as they will have me.
That's all very laudable Rochdale. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away meaning from the word explaining where you were born and raised - which is an interesting thing in itself. But perhaps we need a separate word here.
My (Scottish) grandmother always used to talk about 'when we were staying in (Arran/Bury/Cyprus/wherever)' rather than 'when were were living in' - I don't know whether this is a Scottish turn of phrase or simply reflected her rather peripatetic life, that she never felt like anywhere was permanently 'home'. But perhaps there are three levels of this:
I am staying in x (I am living in x, I'm not necessarily from x and I don't know how long I will live here) I live in y (I have identified y as my home - Scotland, now, in your case, or specifically your locality in Nort hEast Scotland) I am z-ish (I was born and raised in z; z is the place which made me).
This works at local level as well as national level. For my teens and twenties, I lived in a variety of places, none of which I would describe myself as being 'from', and none of which I expected to make my home. It would have been useful to be able to say 'I am staying in Nottingham' (say) as well as 'I am from Stockport'. EDIT: So in the Tony Blair example, we can distinguish between 'born and raised/educated in Scotland' from 'has chosen to make England his home'.
I hear you, but it prompts the question about to what we are referring? Nationality? Ethnicity? Citizenship? Culturally?
I was born in Ashton-Under-Lyne which makes me a Lancastrian by birth. Grew up in Rochdale (hence the handle). But have lived longer in Yorkshire than I did in Lancashire yet didn't consider myself a Yorkshireman.
So I'm not ever culturally going to be Scottish even if I live here til they carry me out in a box. I don't sound Scottish, or share Scottish heritage. But I am a citizen of Scotland, and should they become independent would become a Scottish national.
And I think that is the difference - you can live somewhere and consider yourself not to be a citizen of there, or you can move somewhere and be adopted by it without losing your origins. America does this well - plenty of x-American groups where the x can be during their lifetime or their great great great grandparent's lifetime.
The question to which I am principally referring to is where were you hewn? Where made you? Your parents might have been from Pakistan, say, but you were born in England, grew up in English schools with English friends doing English things watching English telly - you are English. You live in London but were born and grew up in Manchester - you are Mancunian. And so on. I'd like to have a word which we all agree on which means that, because it's interesting.
But I recognise there are ambiguities (were you hewn in Ashton or Rochdale?) and I also recognise we don't all mean the same thing by the words we use.
As an aside, an anecdote: my first family holiday with my parents was to the Isle of Arran, when I was (I think) one. My mother was born on the Isle of Arran, and considers herself Scottish, though she moved away to Lancashire at the age of about three months. We were staying on a farm, and when our hosts found she was born on the island, she was considered more of an islander than our hostess, who was not born on the island but had moved there at the age of two. This was of course a purely honorary position; since our hostess knew everyone on the island, and how it worked, and faced no hostility from being an 'outsider', while my mother had not been there for over 20 years. But nonetheless, place of birth was given a surprising amount of importance.
Place of birth has always seemed like an odd one. My two kids with Mrs RP were born in different hospitals (as there was No Way) we were going back to North Tees) which makes my son of Durham and my daughter of Yorkshire. Both were then raised in Yorkshire until we moved up here. Only the knobcheese Mayor of Thornaby thinks you need to be born in the county to be of there.
Does make me laugh still. At school a couple of kids called me the "Cheshire snob" because I was born outside of Rochdale. Yeah, in Ashton. Which is in Lancashire. So I'm never been really interested in blood and soil bullshit - you are from wherever you establish yourself. 15 years on Teesside and it never felt like home. 15 months in Aberdeenshire and it totally is home.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Yes, I think there is a risk of expectations management going awry which will gift a propaganda victory to the Tories if they manage to hang on to something that by rights they should hold easily.
Rather like how our experience of seeing Ukraine humiliate Russia repeatedly in the first month or two of the war left us unprepared for the rather more gruelling war of attrition that Russia so far seems to be winning in the Donbas. Never underestimate the enemy.
It isn't the Lib Dems doing the over-hyping. It's the bookmakers and the journalists. The strongest remark that I have seen/heard from a Lib Dem is that it seems "very encouraging".
The message from the campaign managers is that things are going well, but that a lot more work still needs to be done. And that means more Lib Dem helpers turning up to do their bit.
So in terms of expectations management, I expect it is the Johnson-Conservatives who are talking up the Lib Dem chances so that the Johnson fan-club can declare their man a winner, whatever the outcome.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.
A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.
The Guardian is the only newspaper available at Glastonbury, they have little stands that sell it throughout the weekend but the only way they seem to be able to flog them is free tote bags with every paper. As soon as the tote bags run out the sales dry up.
By Sunday at festivals most people have flat phones, so the Guardian used to be given out on the Sunday at Latitude. Browsing the paper in the sun and a beer on a Sunday afternoon listening to Seasick Steve, that is an even more Guardian type audience.
I love festivals and try to make one every year, despite the climate. There is something very sweetly British about the eccentricity of music festivals, with the British middle classes at play. Download is definitely a bit less fashionable, as is Leeds/Reading in terms of audience.
I think a lot are financially squeezed this year, with ticket sales down and costs up, and a lot of tickets carried forward from previous years. Enjoy them while they last.
Botham - 383 wickets in 102 matches. Anderson 651 in 171.
Crudely if Botham had played 171 matches and taken wickets at the same rate, he'd have taken 642.
Two factors,
1) More test cricket for Jimmy (more tests each year) 2) Jimmy's fitness and ability to keep playing into his late thirties, where Botham was done by his early thirties.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
OKC, hope you are well. You are far far more astute and intelligent than the rancid foremain An absolute oaf who portrays well all the really nasty traits of the bad Tories. A bigoted racist.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
@Eabhal as I thought just more platitudes and rambling. Nothing new, no timetables or anything realistic. Looks like another bag of carrots for the faithful.
Botham - 383 wickets in 102 matches. Anderson 651 in 171.
Crudely if Botham had played 171 matches and taken wickets at the same rate, he'd have taken 642.
Two factors,
1) More test cricket for Jimmy (more tests each year) 2) Jimmy's fitness and ability to keep playing into his late thirties, where Botham was done by his early thirties.
He was bowling military medium half trackers by his early thirties, yes. Garbage bowler after about 1985
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
Repeating the same statements endlessly when they have been debunked by people who have a real understanding of the subject matter (for clarity I am referring to those whose articles I posted not me) without engaging with any of the issues is not an answer.
In fact it - plus the unpleasant personal abuse directed at posters (some of whom I disagree with but who do not deserve to be abused) and discussions of peoples' sex lives - is pretty much making the site unreadable these days.
So I'm off. Tempus fugit and much else to be done.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about unpleasant personal abuse (which is often directed at myself too, indeed I've been insulted in this very thread and ignored it) and the discussion of sex lives, and I don't engage in either.
I am trying to engage on the issue though and have quoted what I believe is precedent with the ruling of Diplock that 'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
IANAL but as far as I am aware that precedence by Diplock is still how the law operates in this country, is it not?
David Allen Greene is a vested interest with an axe to grind posting a partisan slant to further his own agenda, not a neutral judge like Diplock was, whom I believe was a very well respected and well regarded Judge?
Happily the law doesn't care whether the advocates are left or right or neutral. You only win in court of you are backed by the law. Whether you are a "lefty lawyer" or not.
That's a nice theory, but we all know that courts means judges, who are human, and therefore sometimes make perverse rulings, even going so far as to start with their conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
Which is why we have the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. But ultimately your legal argument either is legally valid or it is no. Your political persuasion or motivation for establishing the legal ruling does not affect the outcome of what is legal or not.
The Supreme Court is the worst for starting with the judges' conclusions and twisting the law to fit.
I'm sorry that you think we are living in a banana republic. I quite like and respect our legal system.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
He should be more concerned about the mad dog Russia rabidly slavering over the child it is ripping apart.
Oh hang on, historically his priests quite like destroying young lives...
All this excuse-making for Russia would be hilarious, if it were not so dangerous. Ukraine, and even NATO, are innocents in this. Putin has made his aims quite clear: it is nothing to do with NATO. It is to do with his dream of a wider Russian empire.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
OKC, hope you are well. You are far far more astute and intelligent than the rancid foremain An absolute oaf who portrays well all the really nasty traits of the bad Tories. A bigoted racist.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
@Eabhal as I thought just more platitudes and rambling. Nothing new, no timetables or anything realistic. Looks like another bag of carrots for the faithful.
All shes got left would you say Malc? And going for it very half heartedly. I cant see her driving nationalist turnout at a GE. Feels a bit 2017ish at the moment but without Ruth gadding about the place on tanks Im happy with my SNP 40 to 45 seats prediction as we stand
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
OKC, hope you are well. You are far far more astute and intelligent than the rancid foremain An absolute oaf who portrays well all the really nasty traits of the bad Tories. A bigoted racist.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
@Eabhal as I thought just more platitudes and rambling. Nothing new, no timetables or anything realistic. Looks like another bag of carrots for the faithful.
It's basically the UK compared to a bunch of smaller countries that are doing better than the UK. Not groundbreaking stuff, nor a coherent argument for independence.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
We signed it in bad faith, I'm sorry to say. No other conclusion is supportable imo given subsequent events.
Whether it was good or bad faith is immaterial, what matters is what the right thing to do next is, and Truss's proposals are excellent and what should have always been proposed.
But another conclusion is supportable IMO, which is the EU have acted in bad faith. Had they shown the requisite flexibility, that even Labour's Hillary Benn has been criticising them for not showing, then the Protocol could have been made to work. They didn't, so its time to find a replacement, what's done is done now and the past belongs to the past.
Most who follow politics, left or right, leave or remain, realize what the game is here. Can't be sure but I think even you probably do
Johnson needed a deal for the GE because he knew a No Deal platform wouldn't cut it. It'd scare people and lose votes. Had to have a deal. A red line for the EU was to keep NI aligned with Ireland - via the Protocol - so he signed up to this. He knew it compromised the integrity of the UK and would have to be renegotiated or reneged on but that was for another day. Winning the GE was all that mattered. He was duly rewarded for his duplicity with a big majority.
And now?
The time has come for that renegotiation or reneging and he's choosing the latter option. 2 reasons for this. Firstly, renegotiation requires some focus and elbow grease. Too hard. Too boring. He doesn't roll that way. Hence no serious engagement with the EU proposals of a few months ago. Second, with his back to the wall politically, he sees advantage in having a massive barney with the EU. He thinks all those Leave voters who bought into Get Brexit Done and People vs Parliament can be riled up again.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
This is the full excerpt:
“We need to move away from the usual Little Red Riding Hood pattern, in that Little Red Riding Hood was good and the wolf was the bad one,” he said. “Something global is emerging and the elements are very much entwined.”
Francis added that a couple of months before the war he met a head of state, who he did not identify but described as “a wise man who speaks little, a very wise man indeed … He told me that he was very worried about how Nato was moving. I asked him why, and he replied: ‘They are barking at the gates of Russia. They don’t understand that the Russians are imperial and can’t have any foreign power getting close to them.’”
He added: “We do not see the whole drama unfolding behind this war, which was, perhaps, somehow either provoked or not prevented.”
He made ridiculous comments along the lines of punching someone if they insulted a mother after some terrorist attacks (France, I think) over cartoons.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.
A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.
The Guardian is the only newspaper available at Glastonbury, they have little stands that sell it throughout the weekend but the only way they seem to be able to flog them is free tote bags with every paper. As soon as the tote bags run out the sales dry up.
By Sunday at festivals most people have flat phones, so the Guardian used to be given out on the Sunday at Latitude. Browsing the paper in the sun and a beer on a Sunday afternoon listening to Seasick Steve, that is an even more Guardian type audience.
I love festivals and try to make one every year, despite the climate. There is something very sweetly British about the eccentricity of music festivals, with the British middle classes at play. Download is definitely a bit less fashionable, as is Leeds/Reading in terms of audience.
I think a lot are financially squeezed this year, with ticket sales down and costs up, and a lot of tickets carried forward from previous years. Enjoy them while they last.
That's the bloke who is as big a fraud as Trump, built a brand on, I am just a humble bloke, spent years homeless riding the rail cars, playing my music on battered and broken instruments before by some miracle I got noticed....when he actually meant to say lifelong professional musician in the biz, who has played on / with numerous extremely well known albums and bands.
@BartholomewRoberts: "The UK can absolutely amend domestic legislation, including breaking international agreements"
LOL
What's so funny, that is the law and precedent as per Diplock as we were discussing earlier. The UK Crown absolutely has the sovereign right to change its mind and break international agreements if it is willing to face the consequences, even as Diplock said, agreements that only came into force 15 days ago.
Whether we should change our minds or not is a matter for the realm of politics, not courts, and politics is quite rightly determined in Parliament.
Cracking drive over Mazzini pass feeling like Fittipaldi in the mille miglia in my fiat Panda, to Novara which is bloody lovely and completely empty. Taormina can f right off
Places like Taormina there's no bars only restaurants so if you want a campari and a coffee you have to incorporate them into an indifferent dinner
Ex PB-er @SeanT wrote about the horrors of touristic Taormina a few years ago. Seems like it hasn’t changed
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.
I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.
Was giving tickets away for the test today totally free the best move? Apparently total sell-out, but masses of empty seats. Should have charged a few quid to stop the chancers just booking them with only intention of turning up at 4-5pm if it is close.
So, it's no wonder it's very middle/upper-middle class, white and champagne socialist.
I always think of it as primarily the BBC having a party.
Don’t they send something like 500 staff to cover it?
The BBC and The Guardian are almost 1:1.
A lot of young people go to Glasto. I keep being told that young people never watch the BBC, and they certainly don't read The Guardian. So I'm not sure the stereotype quite works.
The Guardian is the only newspaper available at Glastonbury, they have little stands that sell it throughout the weekend but the only way they seem to be able to flog them is free tote bags with every paper. As soon as the tote bags run out the sales dry up.
By Sunday at festivals most people have flat phones, so the Guardian used to be given out on the Sunday at Latitude. Browsing the paper in the sun and a beer on a Sunday afternoon listening to Seasick Steve, that is an even more Guardian type audience.
I love festivals and try to make one every year, despite the climate. There is something very sweetly British about the eccentricity of music festivals, with the British middle classes at play. Download is definitely a bit less fashionable, as is Leeds/Reading in terms of audience.
I think a lot are financially squeezed this year, with ticket sales down and costs up, and a lot of tickets carried forward from previous years. Enjoy them while they last.
Yes, I think that's a fair point. I suppose the most Guardian type moment for myself in 2019 was being sat on the grass on the Sunday. 27C heat with a 7.5% Brothers cider listening to Jeff Goldblum's band and his terrible anecdotes about UK cities, although no print Guardian as I take 3x 20,000 mAh battery packs with me. I don't think the weather will be as good this year but I live in hope.
@BartholomewRoberts: "The UK can absolutely amend domestic legislation, including breaking international agreements"
LOL
What's so funny, that is the law and precedent as per Diplock as we were discussing earlier. The UK Crown absolutely has the sovereign right to change its mind and break international agreements if it is willing to face the consequences, even as Diplock said, agreements that only came into force 15 days ago.
Whether we should change our minds or not is a matter for the realm of politics, not courts, and politics is quite rightly determined in Parliament.
You posted as though it was a sequitor. The UK, being sovereign if you remember, can do whatever it damn well likes including "breaking international law" whatever that means. Just as you could kill your neighbour.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Was giving tickets away for the test today totally free the best move? Apparently total sell-out, but masses of empty seats. Should have charged a few quid to stop the chancers just booking them with only intention of turning up at 4-5pm if it is close.
You don’t let people book free Day 5 tickets - you let them turn up at the ground at 9am and stand in line drinking beer, like some of us used to do as students two decades ago.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.
I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.
Tbf fair some of the redder-faced Parker Knoll strategists seem entirely convinced that eg Germany, France, Ireland etc are very much not on the side of the righteous.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
@BartholomewRoberts: "The UK can absolutely amend domestic legislation, including breaking international agreements"
LOL
What's so funny, that is the law and precedent as per Diplock as we were discussing earlier. The UK Crown absolutely has the sovereign right to change its mind and break international agreements if it is willing to face the consequences, even as Diplock said, agreements that only came into force 15 days ago.
Whether we should change our minds or not is a matter for the realm of politics, not courts, and politics is quite rightly determined in Parliament.
You posted as though it was a sequitor. The UK, being sovereign if you remember, can do whatever it damn well likes including "breaking international law" whatever that means. Just as you could kill your neighbour.
Doesn't mean it is a good thing to do.
Absolutely I completely agree with you, whether it is a good thing to do or not is a matter for politicians to debate in Parliament. That is where we determine what is good or not, not the Courts, and quite rightly too.
Was giving tickets away for the test today totally free the best move? Apparently total sell-out, but masses of empty seats. Should have charged a few quid to stop the chancers just booking them with only intention of turning up at 4-5pm if it is close.
You don’t let people book free Day 5 tickets - you let them turn up at the ground at 9am and stand in line drinking beer, like some of us used to do as students two decades ago.
Its as dumb as playing International ODIs vs Holland during the T20 Blast or Test Matches during the Hundred.....then wondering why they have an issue flogging tickets.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Diplock's ruling I keep referring to was about a Treaty that only came into force fifteen days earlier. A lot more than 15 days have passed since the Protocol came into force during which time we have seen Brexit happen, a global pandemic, lockdown, the agreement of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and UK, the breakdown of the Good Friday Agreement and the end of powersharing in Northern Ireland.
Oh and the EU's own sequencing always said that the NI situation was supposed to be revisited once we had a trade agreement, which we now do.
If the Government deems that the Treaty is fundamentally broken because of what has passed in the intervening fifteen days years then that is for Parliament to debate.
@BartholomewRoberts: "The UK can absolutely amend domestic legislation, including breaking international agreements"
LOL
What's so funny, that is the law and precedent as per Diplock as we were discussing earlier. The UK Crown absolutely has the sovereign right to change its mind and break international agreements if it is willing to face the consequences, even as Diplock said, agreements that only came into force 15 days ago.
Whether we should change our minds or not is a matter for the realm of politics, not courts, and politics is quite rightly determined in Parliament.
You posted as though it was a sequitor. The UK, being sovereign if you remember, can do whatever it damn well likes including "breaking international law" whatever that means. Just as you could kill your neighbour.
Doesn't mean it is a good thing to do.
Absolutely I completely agree with you, whether it is a good thing to do or not is a matter for politicians to debate in Parliament. That is where we determine what is good or not, not the Courts, and quite rightly too.
Fair enough. Should it not be an honest debate? So, the party breaking international law should be open that that is what they are doing, rather than pretending that they’re not?
My guess is that Johnson will not be made an Order of the Garter
And as a Scot shouldn't Blair have been invested as a Knight of the Thistle?
Scottish my arse
He was born in Edinburgh. Is that not in Scotland anymore?
When I inferred something similar to what you just asserted I was called a racist for several threads. Not holding my breath that you’ll receive the same treatment.
But your assertion does bring to mind the famous Wellington quote: “To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.“
I'm fairly laissez faire on nationality. If you want to say you are Irish or Scottish because your grandparents were born there that is fine by me. I cannot do that myself - possibly Welsh way way back but I'd rather think we are all human beings and it doesnt hurt anyone.
Hm - for me, that's a bit Humpty Dumpty: 'when I use a word it means whatever I intend it to mean'.
I can accept that there is some ambiguity in some cases. My neighbour's daughter (who, I suppose, is also my neighbour) was born in New York but lived there for less than 6 months before her (English) parents returned to England. I can see some ambiguity in that case, and can accept her describing herself as either English or American. But Tony Blair - he was born in Edinburgh and went to school there. I don't know the details of his ancestry but Blair is a Scottish name. Surely that makes him Scottish? You could argue that he is not Scottish because he no longer lives in Scotland, and the word 'Scottish' simply describes inhabitants of Scotland, but I think that would be a more peculiar definition. If we can't settle on a definition of Scottish (or any other demonym), what's the point of the word?
There is no currently operational legal definition of a Scot at present that I can think of. The nearest is a 'resident' - but that exact status depending on whether one has a UK passport, has been resident for n years (for student grants/fees), and so on.
Well, no, there's not a legal definition - my point is more that demonyms have to mean something. Any word has to mean something we can agree on. If you are born in Scotland, in my book, that makes you Scottish; if you are born in England, that makes you English; if you are born in Norway that makes you Norwegian. Ergo, Tony Blair is Scottish. I can accept the person who is born in America of English parentage but moved to England at an early age describing herself as English. But for me it's largely a where were you born/brought up question.
It depends. Within the West, maybe. My two nephews were born in Dubai, they’ll never be Emirati.
The pedant in me would say yes they are, but I shall reign him in for once, because I do see your point. Why not, I wonder? Is it because they will be growing up culturally western - western schools, mainly mixing with other westerners etc - in a way which wouldn't happen if you were expat in, say, Australia, where much more (all?) of their growing up would be in a thoroughly Australian context? I wonder if there are still white people born in Kenya in the latter years of the British empire who would descibe themselves as Kenyan?
I think it’s to do with the temporary nature of expatriate life, as opposed to permanent immigration.
Unless your parent is Emirati, you’ll never get a passport from them (bar a few asylum seekers and extraordinary individuals), you’re always seen as being from your “home country”, even if you’ve lived your whole life here.
Compare to most Western countries, where there is a path to citizenship for the majority of immigrants.
I certainly know a few white Kenyans and Rhodesians Zimbabweans, they do indeed think of themselves as African.
I have "emigrated" to Scotland. I am not planning to permanently live in any other country. My kids are going to school here. I am paying my taxes here. I ran for election here and have been involved in the community council as well. I am running several small businesses here and am advising another.
I may be of English heritage, but I am intending to be accepted as Scottish as soon as they will have me.
That's all very laudable Rochdale. But my problem with that approach is that it takes away meaning from the word explaining where you were born and raised - which is an interesting thing in itself. But perhaps we need a separate word here.
My (Scottish) grandmother always used to talk about 'when we were staying in (Arran/Bury/Cyprus/wherever)' rather than 'when were were living in' - I don't know whether this is a Scottish turn of phrase or simply reflected her rather peripatetic life, that she never felt like anywhere was permanently 'home'. But perhaps there are three levels of this:
I am staying in x (I am living in x, I'm not necessarily from x and I don't know how long I will live here) I live in y (I have identified y as my home - Scotland, now, in your case, or specifically your locality in Nort hEast Scotland) I am z-ish (I was born and raised in z; z is the place which made me).
This works at local level as well as national level. For my teens and twenties, I lived in a variety of places, none of which I would describe myself as being 'from', and none of which I expected to make my home. It would have been useful to be able to say 'I am staying in Nottingham' (say) as well as 'I am from Stockport'. EDIT: So in the Tony Blair example, we can distinguish between 'born and raised/educated in Scotland' from 'has chosen to make England his home'.
I hear you, but it prompts the question about to what we are referring? Nationality? Ethnicity? Citizenship? Culturally?
I was born in Ashton-Under-Lyne which makes me a Lancastrian by birth. Grew up in Rochdale (hence the handle). But have lived longer in Yorkshire than I did in Lancashire yet didn't consider myself a Yorkshireman.
So I'm not ever culturally going to be Scottish even if I live here til they carry me out in a box. I don't sound Scottish, or share Scottish heritage. But I am a citizen of Scotland, and should they become independent would become a Scottish national.
And I think that is the difference - you can live somewhere and consider yourself not to be a citizen of there, or you can move somewhere and be adopted by it without losing your origins. America does this well - plenty of x-American groups where the x can be during their lifetime or their great great great grandparent's lifetime.
The question to which I am principally referring to is where were you hewn? Where made you? Your parents might have been from Pakistan, say, but you were born in England, grew up in English schools with English friends doing English things watching English telly - you are English. You live in London but were born and grew up in Manchester - you are Mancunian. And so on. I'd like to have a word which we all agree on which means that, because it's interesting.
But I recognise there are ambiguities (were you hewn in Ashton or Rochdale?) and I also recognise we don't all mean the same thing by the words we use.
As an aside, an anecdote: my first family holiday with my parents was to the Isle of Arran, when I was (I think) one. My mother was born on the Isle of Arran, and considers herself Scottish, though she moved away to Lancashire at the age of about three months. We were staying on a farm, and when our hosts found she was born on the island, she was considered more of an islander than our hostess, who was not born on the island but had moved there at the age of two. This was of course a purely honorary position; since our hostess knew everyone on the island, and how it worked, and faced no hostility from being an 'outsider', while my mother had not been there for over 20 years. But nonetheless, place of birth was given a surprising amount of importance.
Place of birth has always seemed like an odd one. My two kids with Mrs RP were born in different hospitals (as there was No Way) we were going back to North Tees) which makes my son of Durham and my daughter of Yorkshire. Both were then raised in Yorkshire until we moved up here. Only the knobcheese Mayor of Thornaby thinks you need to be born in the county to be of there.
Does make me laugh still. At school a couple of kids called me the "Cheshire snob" because I was born outside of Rochdale. Yeah, in Ashton. Which is in Lancashire. So I'm never been really interested in blood and soil bullshit - you are from wherever you establish yourself. 15 years on Teesside and it never felt like home. 15 months in Aberdeenshire and it totally is home.
"You are from wherever you establish yourself" - well absolutely, that's the most important thing.
I rather self-indulgently posted a little homily and a link to a song called 'Oblong of Dreams' off Half Man Half Biscuit's latest album last night, which, among other things, is a paean to the writer's home (the Wirral). I found it deeply moving*. I would love to be that rooted in a place - for that to be where my friends, my family and all my memories were. I kind of feel that way about Northern England, and in particular the North West of England, but my area of focus is slightly too large, and I still feel a stronger emotional connection to the suburb 6 miles away in which I grew up, than to the town in which I have made my perfectly happy life. But I think my daughters have the emotional connection to this town (though they may feel differently when they are in their teens and craving novelty).
I do think it is possible to establish yourself somewhere you feel that strongly about. Clearly it is, that's what you have done. That's just not how I feel about the town where I have made my life. It's perfectly pleasant here and in many ways I have better friends here than I have had in one place at any previous point in my life. It's just doesn't stir my emotions in the same way as home.
I think hills help. I bet you can walk out your front door and see the landscape that surrounds you. I bet you can easily get to a high point from which you can drink in all of your chosen home. Easy to feel firmly rooted in landscape like that. My current home town is disappointingly flat. Though I know people who were born and grew up here for whom it is an unmatchable paradise.
*in a similar vein, I always find the film Local Hero surprisingly moving. I cannot help but cry at the ending. That's a film about home, too.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
OKC, hope you are well. You are far far more astute and intelligent than the rancid foremain An absolute oaf who portrays well all the really nasty traits of the bad Tories. A bigoted racist.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
@Eabhal as I thought just more platitudes and rambling. Nothing new, no timetables or anything realistic. Looks like another bag of carrots for the faithful.
It's basically the UK compared to a bunch of smaller countries that are doing better than the UK. Not groundbreaking stuff, nor a coherent argument for independence.
If you're in the ranks of the Tartan Army we could get some insights into the smaller country of Armenia.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.
I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.
Generally when someone invades a country, there really is only one side. The imperialist in this case is Russia.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Diplock's ruling I keep referring to was about a Treaty that only came into force fifteen days earlier. A lot more than 15 days have passed since the Protocol came into force during which time we have seen Brexit happen, a global pandemic, lockdown, the agreement of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and UK, the breakdown of the Good Friday Agreement and the end of powersharing in Northern Ireland.
Oh and the EU's own sequencing always said that the NI situation was supposed to be revisited once we had a trade agreement, which we now do.
If the Government deems that the Treaty is fundamentally broken because of what has passed in the intervening fifteen days years then that is for Parliament to debate.
My comment was not about Diplock but about your analogy of a treaty about slavery, which would have to be a much older treaty. I hope that clarifies.
Revisiting the NI situation is not the same as unilaterally breaking the agreement. We were already in talks with the EU that were re-visiting the situation.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Don't forget however the fastest growth in the Roman Catholic church is in Latin America, Africa and the Philippines and not the West. Most of those areas are less bothered about what Putin is doing than we are. Pope Francis is himself Argentine not European
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
While you can count on this UK government to refuse indyref2, so just more hot air from Sturgeon and a bone to her base given she has ruled out a wildcat referendum and UDI
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics.
I think trying to get a permanent solution to the NI border before we even knew what our trading terms would be was absolutely pathetic politics by the EU and Theresa May agreeing to that sequencing which put the cart before the horse, even if they then promised that we could revisit the NI issue once we have a trade agreement (a promise they're now wanting to renege upon) and turning it around now so the sequencing is now in the correct order is wise politics.
This Government lost my support by raising National Insurance, that was phenomenally bad economics. Sorting out the NI solution rationally as Liz Truss is proposing is excellent politics and entirely appropriate. The fact that the Protocol was agreed a few years ago is neither here nor there, that was agreed for then, then is now in the past, we need a new agreement for the future.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.
I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.
Generally when someone invades a country, there really is only one side. The imperialist in this case is Russia.
What 'provocation' do you see here ?
Well if you ask me to step into Putin's no doubt exquisitely handcrafted shoes I would say that, having been "at war" with NATO for several decades, and then having been rebuffed when they asked to join NATO following the fall of the Berlin Wall, that there was an anxiety about NATO's intentions with, seemingly, no restraining force able to act on it. Plus there is the "Greater Russia" view, of which I am not too clear on the details, but I think the name gives a general clue.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Diplock's ruling I keep referring to was about a Treaty that only came into force fifteen days earlier. A lot more than 15 days have passed since the Protocol came into force during which time we have seen Brexit happen, a global pandemic, lockdown, the agreement of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and UK, the breakdown of the Good Friday Agreement and the end of powersharing in Northern Ireland.
Oh and the EU's own sequencing always said that the NI situation was supposed to be revisited once we had a trade agreement, which we now do.
If the Government deems that the Treaty is fundamentally broken because of what has passed in the intervening fifteen days years then that is for Parliament to debate.
My comment was not about Diplock but about your analogy of a treaty about slavery, which would have to be a much older treaty. I hope that clarifies.
Revisiting the NI situation is not the same as unilaterally breaking the agreement. We were already in talks with the EU that were re-visiting the situation.
The talks with the EU to revisit the situation failed, because the EU refused to budge, so that leaves the UK in the point where it is necessary to act to protect the Good Friday Agreement which is the higher priority.
It doesn't matter how old the Treaty is, the Treaty Diplock referred to had only been in force for fifteen days, and far more than fifteen days have passed since the Protocol was implemented and much water has passed under the bridge since then.
The one thing we absolutely do not need right now is another Scottish independence referendum. Jesus Christ no.
Let them have it. If they want to go, let the go. But use the history of the Brexit vote to shape the parameters. No lofty ideals - hard facts. What currency? What about existing debt? Who owns the oil fields? Nuclear sub bases? What if the borders vote NO by a majority, can they stay with rUK? Free movement after? etc etc etc
We have no debt you cretinous oaf. UK has debt , borrowed and wasted all the cash as well as raping and pillaging all our oil money.
The only "cretinous oaf" on this site that I have come across is you. Every post you put on demonstrates you are not capable of the most basic political analysis, just pure bile and unintelligent prejudice (pretty typical for anyone who is stupid enough to childishly believe in the exceptionalism of their tribe). The only interesting aspect of your posts is the gradual psychological profile you build which I, for one, find fascinating. I am looking forward to your low intellect torrent of abuse that you will now send my way, which I will use to further my study of you Malcolm. Please keep it up.
Red faced Gannon not crawls out from under his rock. How many times do you need to be told to Fcuk off before it registers in that thick caveman skull of yours. Go play to with lorries on the M25 shot for brains.
Lol. You have done it again. Well done. I think of the two of us the "gammon" title goes to you. You are the Scottish version of the very worst UKIPer. Fundamentally stupid, prejudiced, full of hate and angry at the world, going red in the face every time you read something that doesn't align with your dinosaur thinking. Possibly this because you are smaller than average, very overweight and one of lifes low performers. Your wife regularly nags you for spending too much time sitting on the sofa scoffing crap food. I feel sorry for you. You are a very silly little man.
I have a vision of the real Malcolm. A kindly gentleman, in late middle age sitting perhaps on a park bench. Possibly giving sweets to grandchildren or young nephews and nieces. Smiling at everybody. Has a day at the races every so often, which he enjoys.
OKC, hope you are well. You are far far more astute and intelligent than the rancid foremain An absolute oaf who portrays well all the really nasty traits of the bad Tories. A bigoted racist.
Once again in your low intelligence you attempt to slander me with a possible psychological projection. Show me any post that indicates I am either a bigot or a racist?
Gibbering coward you are a bigoted racist odious creep of the highest order. Typical bully boy goes running for someone to help him when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Dear God grow a spine you dribbling moron.
What do you make of the paper on Indyref2 published this morning?
@Eabhal as I thought just more platitudes and rambling. Nothing new, no timetables or anything realistic. Looks like another bag of carrots for the faithful.
It's basically the UK compared to a bunch of smaller countries that are doing better than the UK. Not groundbreaking stuff, nor a coherent argument for independence.
If you're in the ranks of the Tartan Army we could get some insights into the smaller country of Armenia.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
He said something equally stupid in relation to the Charlie Hebdo killings, comparing satirising a religion with punching one's mother.
He was rightly criticised for that. He should be rightly criticised for this statement. If you look at the full quote he is told by the anonymous politician that Russia is an imperial power. Yes - and that is the problem, which the Pope is too stupid to understand.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
I don't think doing whatever was required to get Brexit done, then revisiting the NI situation once we have a trade agreement and are post-Brexit is phenomenally bad politics, I think it is very smart politics
And there is the nub. There are those who think negotiating a policy and then moments later reneging on it is bad politics conducted by bad politicians; and then there are those who think it is strategic genius.
I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
While you can count on this UK government to refuse indyref2, so just more hot air from Sturgeon and a bone to her base given she has ruled out a wildcat referendum and UDI
Remarkable contribution from you. Nobody could have possibly guessed you would say something like that. Quite amazing.
And she didn't quite rule out a wildcat in the conference (I think).
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Indeed. And hoping to reap a political dividend from this duplicity as they did from the duplicity with which they put us here. Sign a bad deal to win a GE. Renege on it to try and win another. There's a twisted beauty to it.
Summary: the government's legal analysis is nonsense. If there are difficulties, the agreement already provides a mechanism in Article 16 for resolving those difficulties. If that is not invoked, then there can be no basis for tearing up the vast majority of the agreement.
Regardless of the NI aspects it is a very bad Bill on this basis alone. The executive sought to bypass Parliament and scrutiny over the Covid laws. It has given itself similar powers in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and and Courts Act and it is now doing the same here. This is very bad for democratic control and scrutiny and far worse than the unaccountable legislation which the Brexiteers, including many of those now in government, complained about incessantly.
There are only 2 aims behind this Bill: (1) to shore up Johnson's premiership; (2) if that does not work, to allow Liz Truss to win the ensuing Tory leadership campaign.
The interests of democracy, good governance, Britain's reputation as a country which honours its word and the law, NI and voters elsewhere matter not a jot.
It all comes back to the same basic principle in the end. As a country we should not break treaties we have signed with other countries in good faith. The fact that so many in Government seem to be unable to grasp this fact is just one reason amongst many why they are unfit for high office.
All countries, including the UK, the USA and the EU itself and its constituent nations, have always reserved the right to break treaties signed with other countries in good faith if they deem it necessary.
The law is whatever treaties have been incorporated into the law and that can be changed at any time by Parliament.
This is not the first time a Treaty might be breached, it won't be the last. All countries have done it and all countries always can.
The very purpose of the NI Protocol supposedly was to protect the Belfast Agreement. If the Belfast Agreement and the Protocol clash, then protecting the Belfast Agreement by changing the law is the appropriate and higher priority.
When did the UK last unilaterally break an existing treaty? We are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties and are bound by its terms. Or do you think we should break that as well?
In 1964 we broke an existing Treaty, a Geneva Convention no less (the Geneva Convention on the Sea) that only came into force 15 days earlier. This is what the Judge (the future Lord Diplock) who ruled it legal said at the time.
'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
That is just one example I know about. In other examples, Germany and a plethora of other nations have done so in recent years.
Quoting from a Spectator article that was criticised for being inaccurate and misleading. Diplock was simply stating that this was a matter for international law not domestic law. In fact we did not withdraw from or renege on the treaty as you imply. We remained a signatory (and still do under its successor treaties). We purposefully breached one of its clauses but the UN chose not to pursue that. Though one of the consequences was that we found ourselves on the wrong side of the law in our dispute with Iceland during the Cod Wars and ended up losing to them in terms of outcome on all three occasions.
When you break treaties there are consequences. Hence the reason we do not do it.
IPSO ruled that the Spectator article was not inaccurate or misleading, apart from a minor inaccuracy on a date when first published which was subsequently corrected, which didn't change the meaning of the article at all.
Diplock ruled that breaking international law is compatible with changing domestic law, "purposefully breaching" international agreements is perfectly compatible with the rule of domestic law and is a prerogative the Crown has as a sovereign right. It has precedence, and is something the UK can and has done, and other nations can do and they do in fact.
If you accept the principle that the UK is entitled to break or "purposefully breach" international agreements if it is deemed necessary, then that becomes a matter of politics, not a matter of law, as it should be. It is up to the Houses of Parliament and our elected Government and MPs to debate, as it should be.
Yes breaking international agreements can have consequences, but that too is politics. Sticking to them can also have consequences. If it is deemed politically better to break the agreement because it is necessary for a vital interest, such as protecting the Good Friday Agreement and restoring the devolved government even with the consequences, then that is a perfectly legal and legitimate thing to do that is in accordance with British law and British precedence.
Once you've accepted the principle that "purposeful breaches" are acceptable, then the rest is politics. As the old joke goes "we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price".
But what you are promoting is a world in which International law and treaties have no meaning at all. Spain can take back Gibraltar because our only right to it is under a treaty - and we know what you think of treaties. We should not prosecute war criminals nor hold anyone to account for cross border crimes because these are only covered by treaties and treaties have no value.
Your world stinks.
I'm sorry but what I am promoting is the world that actually exists, which is that International Treaties hold meaning for as long as all parties are willing to abide by the terms of those Treaties.
If a party to a Treaty wishes to renege upon a Treaty, or wishes to remain bound to the Treaty but as per Diplock deliberately breaking some of its provisions, then that is something they are entitled as sovereign states to do.
Absolutely we can and should prosecute war criminals, or hold to account cross border crimes, because those are incorporated into domestic law unless or until they cease to be incorporated within domestic law. The decision to cease to incorporate international agreements, or to break them, is a matter for politics and not a matter for lawyers and that is as the world already is, always has been, and always should be.
We have never and should never be bound in perpetuity to agreements of the past. If we were bound to an agreement in the past that we must respect a nation's right to have slavery, then should we remain bound to that agreement in perpetuity for as long as the other party wishes to maintain slavery? Or should we have the right to say that we have changed our minds and have determined slavery is not acceptable?
Your world stinks. My world is the real world as it is, and as it should be.
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Diplock's ruling I keep referring to was about a Treaty that only came into force fifteen days earlier. A lot more than 15 days have passed since the Protocol came into force during which time we have seen Brexit happen, a global pandemic, lockdown, the agreement of a Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and UK, the breakdown of the Good Friday Agreement and the end of powersharing in Northern Ireland.
Oh and the EU's own sequencing always said that the NI situation was supposed to be revisited once we had a trade agreement, which we now do.
If the Government deems that the Treaty is fundamentally broken because of what has passed in the intervening fifteen days years then that is for Parliament to debate.
My comment was not about Diplock but about your analogy of a treaty about slavery, which would have to be a much older treaty. I hope that clarifies.
Revisiting the NI situation is not the same as unilaterally breaking the agreement. We were already in talks with the EU that were re-visiting the situation.
The talks with the EU to revisit the situation failed, because the EU refused to budge, so that leaves the UK in the point where it is necessary to act to protect the Good Friday Agreement which is the higher priority.
It doesn't matter how old the Treaty is, the Treaty Diplock referred to had only been in force for fifteen days, and far more than fifteen days have passed since the Protocol was implemented and much water has passed under the bridge since then.
With respect to the Diplock ruling, it doesn’t matter how old the treaty is. With respect to analysing which parties made mistakes and which parties are acting honestly in this particular case, it absolutely does matter that the treaty in question is the same treaty that the Conservative government signed just a few years ago and claimed as their greatest triumph.
Talks with the EU are ongoing, with new ideas still coming from both sides. So I wouldn’t characterise them as having failed. Not going exactly as one party wants is not the same as “failed”.
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Don't forget however the fastest growth in the Roman Catholic church is in Latin America, Africa and the Philippines and not the West. Most of those areas are less bothered about what Putin is doing than we are. Pope Francis is himself Argentine not European
So African nations would not be bothered if former imperial powers decided a la Putin to start taking back lands they once ruled over?
It was an African country that made one of the best anti-Putin speeches in the UN when this wretched war kicked off.
The BBC has agreed to pay £30,000 in damages to a British Bangladeshi Labour councillor after it mixed her up with Apsana Begum in a news item about the MP facing housing fraud charges.
A statement read out in court on Tuesday said: “The misidentification caused Ms Begum particular distress because it seemed another example of the BBC, and the media generally, misidentifying BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) people, which fed into racist tropes.
Presumably, someone at the BBC Googled the name and took an image from there without knowing what the correct person looked like.
I object to the idea that this is restricted to non-white people. The Guardian managed to pay tribute to Johan Cryuff by printing a picture of Rob Rensenbrink:
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Time to sanction the Bishop of Rome and The Vatican.
I think one of the problems of post-WWII western imperialism is that they/we perceive there to be only "one" side. It appears the Pope doesn't subscribe to this world view.
Generally when someone invades a country, there really is only one side. The imperialist in this case is Russia.
What 'provocation' do you see here ?
Well if you ask me to step into Putin's no doubt exquisitely handcrafted shoes I would say that, having been "at war" with NATO for several decades, and then having been rebuffed when they asked to join NATO following the fall of the Berlin Wall, that there was an anxiety about NATO's intentions with, seemingly, no restraining force able to act on it. Plus there is the "Greater Russia" view, of which I am not too clear on the details, but I think the name gives a general clue.
So the provocation is for an independent nation not to have accepted that they should have remained a Russian vassal ?
"I think one of the problems of post WWII western imperialism..." sounds a bit odd in that context.
The BBC has agreed to pay £30,000 in damages to a British Bangladeshi Labour councillor after it mixed her up with Apsana Begum in a news item about the MP facing housing fraud charges.
A statement read out in court on Tuesday said: “The misidentification caused Ms Begum particular distress because it seemed another example of the BBC, and the media generally, misidentifying BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) people, which fed into racist tropes.
Presumably, someone at the BBC Googled the name and took an image from there without knowing what the correct person looked like.
I object to the idea that this is restricted to non-white people. The Guardian managed to pay tribute to Johan Cryuff by printing a picture of Rob Rensenbrink:
The Guardian themselves have done it on a number of occasions. They don't google it, they take the images from subscriptions to the likes of Getty images and plenty of innocent mistakes where tags have been applied to a collection of photos say an event where multiple individuals are present (but not in that specific photo).
I remember as a lowly intern as a student my first job was going through a huge collection of photos (not of public individuals, much more boring things) and checking / correcting all the tags.
Comments
But I recognise there are ambiguities (were you hewn in Ashton or Rochdale?) and I also recognise we don't all mean the same thing by the words we use.
As an aside, an anecdote: my first family holiday with my parents was to the Isle of Arran, when I was (I think) one. My mother was born on the Isle of Arran, and considers herself Scottish, though she moved away to Lancashire at the age of about three months. We were staying on a farm, and when our hosts found she was born on the island, she was considered more of an islander than our hostess, who was not born on the island but had moved there at the age of two.
This was of course a purely honorary position; since our hostess knew everyone on the island, and how it worked, and faced no hostility from being an 'outsider', while my mother had not been there for over 20 years. But nonetheless, place of birth was given a surprising amount of importance.
In reality, the Yorkshire Party finished third in Wakefield in the:
2017 general election
2021 W Yorkshire mayoral election
2022 local elections
So there's plenty of form there for those willing to look.
My two have never bought one in their lives.
Nor would they ever dream of picking up a free one.
There is debate on here, and even trolling or perhaps incredulity at someone's opinion that is all just part of the fun of being on a political debating forum. Accusing someone of being racist is not something anyone should have to put up with.
Does make me laugh still. At school a couple of kids called me the "Cheshire snob" because I was born outside of Rochdale. Yeah, in Ashton. Which is in Lancashire. So I'm never been really interested in blood and soil bullshit - you are from wherever you establish yourself. 15 years on Teesside and it never felt like home. 15 months in Aberdeenshire and it totally is home.
Crawley was batting defensively like he wanted to shut up shop, and he feathered the ball to slip in a wicket maiden..
Getting out while hitting the ball for runs is one thing, doing so because you feathered the ball to slip is something else. At least go for the runs.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/14/pope-francis-ukraine-war-provoked-russian-troops
The message from the campaign managers is that things are going well, but that a lot more work still needs to be done. And that means more Lib Dem helpers turning up to do their bit.
So in terms of expectations management, I expect it is the Johnson-Conservatives who are talking up the Lib Dem chances so that the Johnson fan-club can declare their man a winner, whatever the outcome.
https://twitter.com/_hypocaust/status/1536668493692682241?s=21&t=AnqlPlerfuqpDJf_yX5eiA
Most Test wickets for England:
651 James Anderson
546 Stuart Broad
383 Ian Botham; James Anderson since turning 30
325 Bob Willis
https://twitter.com/_hypocaust/status/1536669554151153666
I love festivals and try to make one every year, despite the climate. There is something very sweetly British about the eccentricity of music festivals, with the British middle classes at play. Download is definitely a bit less fashionable, as is Leeds/Reading in terms of audience.
I think a lot are financially squeezed this year, with ticket sales down and costs up, and a lot of tickets carried forward from previous years. Enjoy them while they last.
Crudely if Botham had played 171 matches and taken wickets at the same rate, he'd have taken 642.
Two factors,
1) More test cricket for Jimmy (more tests each year)
2) Jimmy's fitness and ability to keep playing into his late thirties, where Botham was done by his early thirties.
Thanks for the input, Frankie
Looks like another bag of carrots for the faithful.
Oh hang on, historically his priests quite like destroying young lives...
All this excuse-making for Russia would be hilarious, if it were not so dangerous. Ukraine, and even NATO, are innocents in this. Putin has made his aims quite clear: it is nothing to do with NATO. It is to do with his dream of a wider Russian empire.
It is imperialism, red in tooth and claw.
I cant see her driving nationalist turnout at a GE. Feels a bit 2017ish at the moment but without Ruth gadding about the place on tanks
Im happy with my SNP 40 to 45 seats prediction as we stand
LOL
Johnson needed a deal for the GE because he knew a No Deal platform wouldn't cut it. It'd scare people and lose votes. Had to have a deal. A red line for the EU was to keep NI aligned with Ireland - via the Protocol - so he signed up to this. He knew it compromised the integrity of the UK and would have to be renegotiated or reneged on but that was for another day. Winning the GE was all that mattered. He was duly rewarded for his duplicity with a big majority.
And now?
The time has come for that renegotiation or reneging and he's choosing the latter option. 2 reasons for this. Firstly, renegotiation requires some focus and elbow grease. Too hard. Too boring. He doesn't roll that way. Hence no serious engagement with the EU proposals of a few months ago. Second, with his back to the wall politically, he sees advantage in having a massive barney with the EU. He thinks all those Leave voters who bought into Get Brexit Done and People vs Parliament can be riled up again.
“We need to move away from the usual Little Red Riding Hood pattern, in that Little Red Riding Hood was good and the wolf was the bad one,” he said. “Something global is emerging and the elements are very much entwined.”
Francis added that a couple of months before the war he met a head of state, who he did not identify but described as “a wise man who speaks little, a very wise man indeed … He told me that he was very worried about how Nato was moving. I asked him why, and he replied: ‘They are barking at the gates of Russia. They don’t understand that the Russians are imperial and can’t have any foreign power getting close to them.’”
He added: “We do not see the whole drama unfolding behind this war, which was, perhaps, somehow either provoked or not prevented.”
He made ridiculous comments along the lines of punching someone if they insulted a mother after some terrorist attacks (France, I think) over cartoons.
All the first 29 the most ever.
Whether we should change our minds or not is a matter for the realm of politics, not courts, and politics is quite rightly determined in Parliament.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/caught-in-the-tourist-trap
Doesn't mean it is a good thing to do.
Were all those priests who molested their young charges also "somehow provoked" ?
Oh and the EU's own sequencing always said that the NI situation was supposed to be revisited once we had a trade agreement, which we now do.
If the Government deems that the Treaty is fundamentally broken because of what has passed in the intervening fifteen days years then that is for Parliament to debate.
I rather self-indulgently posted a little homily and a link to a song called 'Oblong of Dreams' off Half Man Half Biscuit's latest album last night, which, among other things, is a paean to the writer's home (the Wirral). I found it deeply moving*. I would love to be that rooted in a place - for that to be where my friends, my family and all my memories were. I kind of feel that way about Northern England, and in particular the North West of England, but my area of focus is slightly too large, and I still feel a stronger emotional connection to the suburb 6 miles away in which I grew up, than to the town in which I have made my perfectly happy life. But I think my daughters have the emotional connection to this town (though they may feel differently when they are in their teens and craving novelty).
I do think it is possible to establish yourself somewhere you feel that strongly about. Clearly it is, that's what you have done. That's just not how I feel about the town where I have made my life. It's perfectly pleasant here and in many ways I have better friends here than I have had in one place at any previous point in my life. It's just doesn't stir my emotions in the same way as home.
I think hills help. I bet you can walk out your front door and see the landscape that surrounds you. I bet you can easily get to a high point from which you can drink in all of your chosen home. Easy to feel firmly rooted in landscape like that. My current home town is disappointingly flat. Though I know people who were born and grew up here for whom it is an unmatchable paradise.
*in a similar vein, I always find the film Local Hero surprisingly moving. I cannot help but cry at the ending. That's a film about home, too.
What 'provocation' do you see here ?
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
Revisiting the NI situation is not the same as unilaterally breaking the agreement. We were already in talks with the EU that were re-visiting the situation.
I think trying to get a permanent solution to the NI border before we even knew what our trading terms would be was absolutely pathetic politics by the EU and Theresa May agreeing to that sequencing which put the cart before the horse, even if they then promised that we could revisit the NI issue once we have a trade agreement (a promise they're now wanting to renege upon) and turning it around now so the sequencing is now in the correct order is wise politics.
This Government lost my support by raising National Insurance, that was phenomenally bad economics. Sorting out the NI solution rationally as Liz Truss is proposing is excellent politics and entirely appropriate. The fact that the Protocol was agreed a few years ago is neither here nor there, that was agreed for then, then is now in the past, we need a new agreement for the future.
It doesn't matter how old the Treaty is, the Treaty Diplock referred to had only been in force for fifteen days, and far more than fifteen days have passed since the Protocol was implemented and much water has passed under the bridge since then.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1536685204428947461
To be clear: His lawyer went to see him at his penal colony, and was told there was "no such convict". No information was given about where he might be now....
He also provoked Putin. No doubt the Pope can see both sides here, too.
He was rightly criticised for that. He should be rightly criticised for this statement. If you look at the full quote he is told by the anonymous politician that Russia is an imperial power. Yes - and that is the problem, which the Pope is too stupid to understand.
I think @kinabalu's explanation of how we got here is pretty obviously on the money.
Emmanuel Macron has been accused of betraying Ukraine after figures showed that French imports of Russian gas rose during the invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/13/emmanuel-macron-betrays-ukraine-france-russian-gas-oil-imports/
Talks with the EU are ongoing, with new ideas still coming from both sides. So I wouldn’t characterise them as having failed. Not going exactly as one party wants is not the same as “failed”.
It was an African country that made one of the best anti-Putin speeches in the UN when this wretched war kicked off.
This matters quite a bit in the bandit country of the Scottish Borders and north Cumbria (soon to be Cumberland).
The BBC has agreed to pay £30,000 in damages to a British Bangladeshi Labour councillor after it mixed her up with Apsana Begum in a news item about the MP facing housing fraud charges.
A statement read out in court on Tuesday said: “The misidentification caused Ms Begum particular distress because it seemed another example of the BBC, and the media generally, misidentifying BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) people, which fed into racist tropes.
Presumably, someone at the BBC Googled the name and took an image from there without knowing what the correct person looked like.
I object to the idea that this is restricted to non-white people. The Guardian managed to pay tribute to Johan Cryuff by printing a picture of Rob Rensenbrink:
https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/713277338620977152/photo/1
"I think one of the problems of post WWII western imperialism..." sounds a bit odd in that context.
I remember as a lowly intern as a student my first job was going through a huge collection of photos (not of public individuals, much more boring things) and checking / correcting all the tags.