View Single Post
Old 13-06-2022, 23:28   #4124
1andrew1
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 15,249
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze1andrew1 is cast in bronze
Re: Britain outside the EU

The absurdity of the government's actions is neatly summarised in this Tweet.
Quote:
I am confused. The Protocol represents such a threat to the stability of the UK that it is legal to breach the international treaty which created it, yet the threat is not serious enough to trigger the clause within the treaty specifically to deal with such a threat, Article 16?
https://twitter.com/arthistorynews/s...04598751043585

Some good analysis here from David Allen Green. Another waste of taxpayers' money by this government.

Quote:
There are no possible circumstances where the United Kingdom can resort to the the principle of “necessity” under international law without going through the Article 16 process first.

And the government – despite many threats – has not triggered the Article 16 process.

The “position” published today even admits the government believes that the Article 16 were met:

“In July 2021, however, the Government assessed in the Command Paper that, as a result of both diversion of trade and serious societal and economic difficulties occasioned by the Protocol, the conditions for the exercise of the rights provided for under Article 16 of the Protocol were already met.”

But the government then did nothing under Article 16 on that basis.

For the government to not trigger Article 16 instead of resorting to the the principle of “necessity” under international law is beyond rational comprehension.

Wookies coming from Endor makes more sense.

And there is even more.

So “necessary” is this proposal that the legislation will take at least months, if not a year to pass into statute.

Such a leisurely timeline does not indicate urgency – and it does not show that the problem is “grave and imminent”.
https://davidallengreen.com/
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote