Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Answer, one which isn’t followed up by a permanent treaty.
There is precedent for ‘treaty override’ in the U.K. and elsewhere. It happens from time to time. It should always be avoided if at all possible but sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes sovereign nation states have competing international obligations. Because they are sovereign, they are free to decide how to resolve that; sometimes that will involve breaching the terms of an international treaty.
“international law” is a term widely misused. There is no such thing as international law, there are only treaties. There is no criminal sanction for breaking “international law” because it isn’t criminal law, although this week the term is clearly being used by Remainers and opposition MPs mischievously to try to draw an equivalence.
Sometimes the consequences for breaching a treaty are spelled out within the treaty. Sometimes the consequences are hard to pin down - they may affect a country’s international standing or its ability to sign other treaties later on. The magnitude of the effect most likely matches the magnitude of the breach, and the country’s general international standing.
I suggest that in this case the actual consequences for the U.K., *if* these treaty-breaking clauses are ever activated, will be rather less than the fuss being made over them this week.
|
Brandon Lewis is not a Remainer nor is he an opposition MP. He is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who yesterday admitted "This does break international law in a specific and limited way".
How can the Withdrawal Agreement be oven-ready if it results in a cabinet minister admitting it has to be amended in such a manner?