tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
Nobody is missing it. According to the minister, there will be no breach of the Belfast Agreement. If so, there should be no friction on the Irish border.
Brexit Oven Ready Deal burnt to a crisp
- Thread starter Ollygon
- Start date
Nobody is missing it. According to the minister, there will be no breach of the Belfast Agreement. If so, there should be no friction on the Irish border.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I thinks it’s precisely the point. Brandon Lewis has just admitted that Johnson’s plan to override the withdrawal agreement breaks international law ie the treaty Johnson signed up to back in January.
The Civil Servant who resigned obviously thinks people, but especially government ministers, shouldn’t break the law. Good lad. His mum and dad obviously brought him up proper
Oh peeerlease!!!
“Breaking International Law”
“Johnson’s Plan”
Let’s see what actually happens ....
It must be hugely frustrating for the Government having to conduct this negotiation with their hands tied behind their backs.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Government minister admits that the proposed bill breaks international law
Minister admits Boris Johnson's Brexit plans break international law
Brandon Lewis admits UK policy unlawful during Commons debatewww.independent.co.uk
And then adds... “but only in a very specific and limited way.”
Well, that’s alright, isn’t it?
mmmmm
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Lol
If anyone’s tied the Government’s hands behind its back in the negotiations it’s Johnson when he agreed to the Withdrawal Agreement that he’s now trying to override. Now that Brandon Lewis NI Secretary admits the plans will break the law I’m curious to know how the Attorney General Suella Braverman will react. As she has the intellectual heft of Priti Patel I’m not holding my breath.
Shades of Dominic Cummings though. I don’t like the law (that I signed up to) so I’m going to ignore it.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Johnson should have read and deeply considered all the small print throughly then... before actually signing up to the Withdrawal Agreement in January, shouldn’t he? Another example of his lazy ineptitude. 
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
So let's go through this.
- We will be leaving a free trade area to a system where we (and the EU) have to charge tariffs on goods that flow between the UK and the EU as a result of WTO rules
- There will be no border between the EU and NI
- And under Johnson's plan there will be no border between the UK and NI
- So how will these tarrifs be levied if we have no idea of what / who is entering the country?
- And of course it provides a backdoor for anyone who wants to come here from the EU (so much for taking back control)
If we have no checks between NI and UK then we are forcing a border between NI and ROI, it's the only way it can work.
And this of course is in breach of the Good Friday agreement - breach that and then watch what happens in NI.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Presumably the WA falls under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice rather than the U.K. justice system because it’s supranational. Which surely means any change in U.K. law Johnson tries to push through Parliament will have no effect?
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Precisely. And that’s why May spent so much time negotiating her backstop - to avoid having a hard border between NI and the ROI. That plan of course was sabotaged by Johnson and the ERG, and when he won his majority Johnson reverted to the EU’s plan A, which was to have the border between NI and GB. Now he’s trying to renege on the deal he signed up to just 9 months ago.
So, as you say, where is the border going to be?
In fact, as far as I can tell, Johnson’s cunning plan is for the mooted UK legislation to allow Ministers to decide which goods are subject to checks. So what’s the bet they say “none”
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Yep. My understanding is that any dispute under the Withdrawal Agreement is determined by the ECJ. And before the usual suspects get hot under the collar about the European Court sticking its nose in - that’s what Johnson agreed to!!!
In other words you're ok with lying, cheating and betraying!
No wonder you love Boris.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
To be honest, I am always suspicious of France’s ulterior motives. Even when we were in the EU they would seem to try and disadvantage us (budget rebates, CAP, CFS, lamb exports etc). Now that we are on the outside, I suspect they would like to see the U.K. weakened, if not disassembled, to render us much less competitive. And to boost their collective Gallic ego.
If Scotland splits away (that Bon Accord thing again) then it would seem to be only a matter of time before NI was bribed to unify with the Republic. That may not happen in our lifetimes, but La République and it’s academics in L’École Nationale d'Administration are probably strategising for the very long term. The Balkanisation of Great Britain... let’s hope it does not go as badly.
If Scotland splits away (that Bon Accord thing again) then it would seem to be only a matter of time before NI was bribed to unify with the Republic. That may not happen in our lifetimes, but La République and it’s academics in L’École Nationale d'Administration are probably strategising for the very long term. The Balkanisation of Great Britain... let’s hope it does not go as badly.
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
If we carry on like this I would guess that Irish unification may be a lot quicker than 'long term'.
Whatever the outcome of this particular situation, NI will be treated differently to the mainland in some ways and it's going to diverge even more once we have fully Brexited. The alternative is mass civil unrest, a return of terrorism and a costly border to maintain - for what exactly? I'm sure the British government is already thinking that this process would be so much easier if it wasn't for NI and this is what future governments will think as well.
Whatever the outcome of this particular situation, NI will be treated differently to the mainland in some ways and it's going to diverge even more once we have fully Brexited. The alternative is mass civil unrest, a return of terrorism and a costly border to maintain - for what exactly? I'm sure the British government is already thinking that this process would be so much easier if it wasn't for NI and this is what future governments will think as well.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Is that the view of the Conservative and Unionist Party to give them their full name? Clue is in the name.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
If you believe that then your understanding of the EU is as vague as your understanding of British politics.
The economic chasm between the north, Ulster, Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the South West one the one hand, and London and the south east on the other is a product of Tory Government fiscal and monetary policy in this country, completely independent of the EU. In fact, the EU has been responsible for funding many, many economically restorative projects in this country.
glasshalffull
Well-known member
The only time I can ever remember anyone actually saying it though was when Theresa May made her speech after giving the big fat bung to the DUP
.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Do you think Johnson gives a toss about them? He has already broken a public promise to the DUP and sold them down the river by agreeing that NI will be treated differently to the mainland in Brexit.
I just think that the majority of people in NI will come to realise that their future would be better served in the ROI. This will include many protestants as well as republicans. When this becomes clear the momentum will be on the side of reunification and it will happen IMO.
Last edited:
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
It's beyond time Ireland was given back to the Irish. The UK shouldn't be occupying the island in the first place.
I don't think Johnson is bothered at all about the Union.
Every time his party makes a statement about COVID19, Nicola Sturgeon upstages them with sheer common sense. He's pushing Scottish voters even further towards the SNP and independence.
Still, that'll leave the Tories with a built-in majority from English voters for ever more.
Oh shit, I'm going to have nightmares tonight now!
Wizaard
Well-known member
Without being pedantic, it would be unification as the United Ireland was previously part of the UK. This would be a separate entity altogether. Don't see it myself. Unionism is still very strong in both NI and the Conservative party. Boris will go before Belfast does.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
It is not good to be so dismissive of breaking the rule of law. Even if it happens in a 'specific and limited way' it will be very damaging to our international credibility as a trustworthy nation. What then the prospects for free trade agreements across the world? Any country thinking about trading with us would want to tie us tightly into restrictive terms that would take ages to negotiate and thereby cause tremendous problems for British exporters.
And if you don't believe me, how about the Chair of the Parliamentary Justice Committee who said, "Any breach...of the international legal obligations we have entered into is unacceptable, regardless of whether it is in a 'specific or limited way.' " That was Conservative MP, Sir Bob Neil.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Nobody has "Broken the rule of law" though!! I have absolutely no doubt that BJ may be seeking to exploit ambiguity in the existing agreement, might be presuring the legals to consider work-arounds, loopholes etc. That there may be some gamesmanship going on that is intended to rattle a few cages etc.. It's also possible that there may well be conflicting legel opinion in regard to what may or may not be under consideration.
However until the goverment takes a specific action to implement measures that contravene or may contravene international law, then all of this is nothing more than speculation.
Name one country that wouldn't trade with Britain because they view us an untrustworthy nation. Every year the UK tops the world in these sort of measurements; half the legal systems on the planet are based on ours.
The EU regularly flouts rules it doesn't like, the USA backs out of treaties it no longer wants and China has effectively torn up the Hong Kong agreement. They'll all be trading with us and each other.
And Bob Neil is a hard-line Remainer from the Dominic Grieve camp so he's not getting the benefit of any doubt on this subject.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Brandon Lewis, the Govt Minister for exiting the EU admitted in Parliament that what they were proposing would break International law.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
So what?
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
Now you're back in the playground at school
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
No I'm not... It's a genuine question..
Bottle
Well-known member
This hole you are digging, have you reached Australia yet? On their much lauded points based system, I don’t think they will let you in when you do get there.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
OK X3, if it is a genuine question then see mine earlier when I spoke of the need for trustworthiness and not wanting to be tied down into very long contractual negotiations in future trade agreements.
One of the reasons that this country does well in international relations is because we are viewed as an honourable nation
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
There’s a lot of Arthur Daley’s on here tonight.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Let me put it a different way, because I was about to type "So what ?" again.
In the context of the comment of mine above, that you quoted, when responding with the comment below...
What difference does it make ? and further...
What difference does the commeght below make either?
I'll repeat - NOBODY HAS BROKEN INTERNATIONAL LAW
In the context of the comment of mine above, that you quoted, when responding with the comment below...
What difference does it make ? and further...
What difference does the commeght below make either?
I'll repeat - NOBODY HAS BROKEN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
M’lud - under intense examination in the House of Commons the accused, Mr Brandon Lewis, admitted he was part of a wider conspiracy to BREAK THE LAW!!!! This is recorded and plain for everyone to hear. He may argue, and indeed he does, that the breach is specific and limited but I submit, m’lud, that a person can not be only partially in breach of the law. It’s like arguing one is only partially pregnant.
A very succinct and eloquent summary Mr Mex. I direct the jury to find the defendant guilty. Bring up the co-defendants ....... Johnson, Cummings, Gove......
Public gallery goes “hissssss!!”
A very succinct and eloquent summary Mr Mex. I direct the jury to find the defendant guilty. Bring up the co-defendants ....... Johnson, Cummings, Gove......
Public gallery goes “hissssss!!”
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Johnson Guilty of Thought Crime - Say's Communist Spiv
Wizaard
Well-known member
When the NI Secretary says it's breaking the law, the Perm Sec resigns over it, I'd say they know more about it than AVFTT pundits. I know, that's a bold statement
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
X3. How many shades of black does it take for you to understand that it will never be white?
S
Scaramanga
Guest
Bill Cash clause 38
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Which says the U.K. is sovereign.
Well we know that. It always has been even when it was a member of the EU. It’s just a statement of fact. That doesn’t mean it can ignore international treaties it’s signed.
If that’s what the Government is relying on to justify a breach of the treaty and international law, then it’s pretty desperate stuff.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Once again, the Boris lovers defending the indefensible. When the head of Legals resigns and the Northern Ireland Secretary says it's illegal, that's still fine. Continue with the cap doffing if it makes you know your place
Heard Matt Hancock - as the government`s sacrificial lamb doing the media rounds this morning - spuriously defending the breaking of international law with words to the effect of: "Peace in Ireland is of paramount importance, and trumps everything. So it`s ok."
This hardly justifies breaking a signed agreement, and obviously begs the interesting question, as to whether the government fully realised the latent implications when they signed it.
And let`s not forget the triumphant crowing from Tory MPs about a Boris` deal that everyone thought was impossible to achieve.
Expediency has always been a favourite go-to card for Johnson.
When Britannia waived the rules, indeed....
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
I can't see how what the government is proposing secures peace in Northern Ireland, to me it actually puts the Good Friday agreement at risk. Apart from breaking international law, the government is also playing with the security of it's citizens. It is so irresponsible, what have we done to deserve this? Not sure why Hancock is so keen to be the patsy for Johnson, I remember he was also one of the ones who publically supported Cummings. Surely he is smart enough to know he is just a useful idiot and will be the fall guy at some future point. How low can this government go?
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
You don't know what it's proposing.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
We do know that they are proposing to break international law because it was confirmed in parliament by the justice minister. Or is this fake news?
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
At this stage, we are in the midst of a negotiation. I don’t think that is something that should be overlooked.
In addition, the specifics of the proposal do matter, particularly if it is a matter of clarification. It’s possible that the EU may be seeking back-door influence that was never intended in the U.K. understanding of the agreement.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Your approach seems to be that any negotiating strategy is OK. if it gives us leverage. Threatening to break legally binding agreements we have made is OK if it helps us end up getting what we want. Where do you draw the line with this approach?
Perhaps we could threaten the EU with nuclear weapons if they won't give us the deal that we want?
tangerinenotorange
Well-known member
You don't know what the government is proposing but to you it puts the Good Friday Agreement at risk.
The Attorney General takes a different view I see.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
I’m not sure that I’ve quite said that, but if it suits your argument, then I suppose you can choose to just make stuff up.
What we have on here is the typical polarised political lines being drawn and a whole load of assumptions.
The EU has hardly played the game with regard to the UK exit of Europe and seems more focused on protecting the crumbling empire by mKing an example of the U.K., rather than focusing on its obligations to respect our sovereignty and make this arrangement as painless and reasonable as possible.
The UK entered into agreement with them on the understanding that they would work with us to reach a deal and will have had our own interpretation as to the basis of implementation of any signed agreements.
If , as it appears may be the case, the agreement requires clarification in order to ensure that the EU influence cannot extend beyond that which was envisaged within the spirit of that agreement, then the UK potentially has every right to clarify in specific areas.
Further, given the stage of the negotiations and the lack of progress to date. It makes absolute sense to get this matter on the table now, rather than later.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
You don't know what the government is proposing but to you it puts the Good Friday Agreement at risk.
The Attorney General takes a different view I see.
Journalists have been briefed that this is in the legislation, here is one report and there are many others as I am sure that you know;
EU warns Boris Johnson’s plan to tear up Brexit deal risks ‘peace’ in Ireland
Prime minister told to stick to agreement, to ‘protect peace and stability on the island and integrity of the single market’
www.independent.co.uk
So far the parties that think that it could damage the Good Friday agreement are;
Republicans in NI,
Unionists in NI
The EU
Democrats in US (threatening not to make trade deals with the UK because of this)
The Irish government
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
The point is that you seem to think that this tactic is OK in this negotiation. What else would you think was acceptible?
To me and many others breaking international law is a bridge too far and should not be countenenced in any circumstance. Apart from being a fundamentally dishonest act, it is ultimately self defeating because it impacts negatively on this countries standing in the world.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
So we have an article that describes the unknown clarifications as “TEARING UP THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT”Journalists have been briefed that this is in the legislation, here is one report and there are many others as I am sure that you know;
EU warns Boris Johnson’s plan to tear up Brexit deal risks ‘peace’ in Ireland
Prime minister told to stick to agreement, to ‘protect peace and stability on the island and integrity of the single market’
So far the parties that think that it could damage the Good Friday agreement are;
Republicans in NI,
Unionists in NI
The EU
Democrats in US (threatening not to make trade deals with the UK because of this)
The Irish government
And some interested parties who “think” that it “could” damage the GFA.
That sounds conclusive doesn’t it ?
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
No, that isn’t the point.... Well not my point, at least.
If you can’t even have a straightforward discussion with me and accurately reflect my expressed opinion, how are you to be trusted to discuss this subject (given your obvious bias) in a balanced way?
Drop your political allegiance and what you are told to think for a minute and try focusing on the facts.