UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You really do show your Remainer colours with remarks like that. (Others like you too saying much the same thing).

When I proclaim that setting a house on fire and running into it would be a bad idea, I'll continue to make the statement that it's a bad idea when the building actually catches fire. I'll also continue to say that it's a bad idea long after the building has burned to the ground. This will never not be a bad idea and remoaners will never stop telling you that it's a bad idea and always has been.

It was a bad idea 4 years ago and it's a bad idea now. The fact that we are having to break international law is just yet more proof that the house is, in fact, on fire and we're continuing to run into it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Jo Public: What about the oven-ready Brexit deal? It's September and we're still faffing about fishing rights and fields of a level-playing variety.

BoJo Apologist: No, no, no! Don't be daft! The Brexit deal wasn't oven-ready, it was the Withdrawal Agreement which was oven-ready!

Jo Public: What kind of oven-ready Withdrawal Deal requires you to break international law?

BoJo apologist: Oops!

We are not "faffing" in the sense you've described. We cannot be ruled by EU diktat nor can they have our cake and eat it.


---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

When I proclaim that setting a house on fire and running into it would be a bad idea, I'll continue to make the statement that it's a bad idea when the building actually catches fire. I'll also continue to say that it's a bad idea long after the building has burned to the ground. This will never not be a bad idea and remoaners will never stop telling you that it's a bad idea and always has been.

It was a bad idea 4 years ago and it's a bad idea now. The fact that we are having to break international law is just yet more proof that the house is, in fact, on fire and we're continuing to run into it.

You at least come out with a case and minimum sarcasm.

[Carth]

The house is burning to the ground?

Brilliant, it wasn't a very good house anyway, too many power sockets in the wrong place and the services were a bit of a mess.

Time to build a new and better house to our specifications, not those of 20+ architects with differing ideas

[jonbxx]

There are some interesting clauses in the Withdrawal Agreement if either side does not comply with the agreement in total. Here are some highlights;

Article 170 - if an agreement/resolution has not been reached in 3 months, an independent arbitration panel needs to be set up to resolve the differences
Article 171 - this panel would be lawyers or judges basically. 2 from each side and a fifth voted member from those 4 nominees as a chair
Article 174 - any dispute that affects EU law goes the the ECJ and that ruling is final (!)
Article 178 - if the guilty party does not comply with the arbitration panels (or ECJs) decision within a reasonable amount of time then the complainant can suspend;

(a) any provision of this Agreement other than those contained in Part Two; or
(b) parts of any other agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom under the
conditions set out in that agreement.

(Part Two is citizens rights)

So basically, if the rules are broken and cannot be fixed, the entire Withdrawal Agreement goes except for the Citizens Rights provisions AND any other agreements between the UK can be suspended.

You can see who voted for this here

[1andrew1]

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?

[Carth]

If we've left the EU, can the ECJ still rule on it and can we still be suspended from it?


Maybe the agreement was oven ready, but some fool turned the oven down?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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?

Just because something is "oven ready" doesn't mean you can't spice it up halfway through the cooking process.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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?

You are just sniping at the Guvmin just for the sake of it. Nothing constructive at all - like protecting the UK for unintended consequences if there is no deal.

Forget about "oven-ready" - that was then. Now is now and perhaps you could analyse instead the need for this variation.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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?

Brandon Lewis is specifically correct. What’s your point?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Carth

If we've left the EU, can the ECJ still rule on it and can we still be suspended from it?


Maybe the agreement was oven ready, but some fool turned the oven down?

Yep, in respect to matters that affect EU law, we agreed that the ECJs rulings are supreme (just like when we're in the EU) For matters that don't affect EU law, the arbitration panels findings rule if a mutual resolution can't be found.

In the case of this market bill, it looks like state aid is an issue and, where this would apply to Northern Ireland, that affects the Single Market and therefore EU law

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Brandon Lewis is specifically correct. What’s your point?

That the term "international law" is used far more widely than by opposition MPs and Remainers which is what you suggested - it's being used by the Government.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Carth

The house is burning to the ground?

Brilliant, it wasn't a very good house anyway, too many power sockets in the wrong place and the services were a bit of a mess.

Time to build a new and better house to our specifications, not those of 20+ architects with differing ideas

Shame we haven't made provisions to live somewhere else while the house is being rebuilt. Nor did we get everyone out of the house before it was engulfed. And thanks to the structure of the house being compromised to the fire, it's a safety risk going into it until it's made safe so rebuilding it is just going to take longer.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You are just sniping at the Guvmin just for the sake of it. Nothing constructive at all - like protecting the UK for unintended consequences if there is no deal.

Forget about "oven-ready" - that was then. Now is now and perhaps you could analyse instead the need for this variation.

You're just defending the guvmin for the sake of it. Nothing constructive at all - like protecting the UK from unintended consequences if there is no deal.

Forget about criticising what you were sold on in January, this is now. Now is now and perhaps you could analyse what other lies and mistruths you've been sold so you're not taken in again.

(It's funny how this non-sense argument can be so easily flipped back and it still adds nothing to the discussion. Kind of expected better of you, Seph).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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?

The withdrawal agreement is now almost well and truly cooked, with only 3 months to go. Then it gets stuffed.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That the term "international law" is used far more widely than by opposition MPs and Remainers which is what you suggested - it's being used by the Government.

You misunderstood my point.

Obviously remainers didn’t invent the term. This week, however, it is being wilfully misused by some in a way that allows the impression to be formed that the government is doing something criminal.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

We are not "faffing" in the sense you've described. We cannot be ruled by EU diktat nor can they have our cake and eat it.


---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------



You at least come out with a case and minimum sarcasm.

In a limited and specific way...