[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If I might just comment on your reply to Mick ...

There is a wealth of difference at many levels between international political agreements (treaties) and a piddling civil contract. The analogy doesn't hold because the former affects millions of people whilst the latter afeects "you".

There's a wealth of difference, but one of those differences is not whether or not a legally binding document is erm...legally binding.

Originally Posted by Mick

Several Tory MPs jumped ship, after winning their seats on a get Brexit done, they certainly did not campaign on a stopping Brexit, they left their party after they formed the party of many names, Change UK?

They then jumped ship again to a totally irrelevant party, think it's called something like the Illiberal Undemocrats. Each of the MPs that left their parties, Labour ones included, all lost their seats at the last election.

As I said, justice served.

I don't think any of this was contested by anyone in this thread. But I do think "Get Brexit done" as a slogan is a Boris special, for whatever little that's worth. I think in 2017 we were still on "Brexit means Brexit".

Originally Posted by Mick

Well actually this is a rather poor analogy, if ever I saw one.

You signed a legal document that clearly states the APR is variable, which means they can change it, as long as they notify you as per the terms of the agreement, all perfectly legal and above board, you cannot say you have a problem with the wording, as all that has changed is the APR, which was said in the agreement that was variable, i.e, it can change to go either higher or lower.

Great, so we agree that signed legal documents are legally binding. Glad that's cleared up.

Originally Posted by Mick

The EU has broken it, they have failed in the legal obligation to act in good faith in these negotiations, so if they can break/ignore the law, why can't we?

I keep seeing this, but where's the legal obligation here?

If the EU has broken a legal obligation, why aren't we getting lawyers involved? Why are our own lawers claiming we're in the wrong here? IF the EU had broken the law, the treaty would be void from their doing and we'd be off the hook. So why is everyone saying the UK is trying to break the law?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Andrew, You must know that you're dodging the question. Nothing is taken in isolation. The nub of the problem is the possibility that the EU can interfere with food traffic between England and NI.

There is no gain in disrupting the Union by this means.

So, again: Do you agree that that the EU should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

Seph, your doggedness here is bordering on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. What exactly are you trying to get Andrew to say here? Whether he thinks it's okay or not isn't really up for debate, what matters is what's legal or not.


Anyway.....


Another Tory MP quits over this.

Before peopel get the pitchforks out, note that Rehman Chishti voted leave in 2016. So he's not a remainer and he thinks the government is wrong - enoguh to quit his position over it.