PM Boris forms a government

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Back in 2016, David Cameron wanted to heal the 40-year European divisions in the Conservative Party. He's now in the garden shed and Boris is wondering why he's now in the dog house that he bought for his PR puppy.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------


If there's one thing he should have learnt from Theresa May and that's no red lines.

And the EU don't have their own red lines? The EU Parliament has to agree to any changed Withdrawal Agreement, and they're only due to be sitting for a total of 4 1/2 days before Oct 19th(I've checked the EU calendar).

[jfman]

The key word is likely to be “due”.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

The key word is likely to be “due”.

Still impossible for a changed agreement to be put to them, properly scrutinised by everyone, debated, agreed, sent to the EU council of ministers, and so on. Then again, I suppose that's the general idea. Something that is 100% unachievable.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

The key word is likely to be “due”.

No, the key words are "has to agree to", and I think everyone and his dog knows the EU are never going to willingly allow the budgie out of its cage.

Parliament, by 'following the will of the people' have probably consigned the UK to another (at least) 3 months in no mans land . . are we still paying for the dubious honour of being neither in nor out?

[jfman]

The EU Parliament isn’t going to excessively scrutinise something that is put to them by the EU negotiating team that’s obviously in the interests of the EU.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

The EU Parliament isn’t going to excessively scrutinise something that is put to them by the EU negotiating team that’s obviously in the interests of the EU.

Are the EU the only ones to be allowed to properly scrutinise it?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Are the EU the only ones to be allowed to properly scrutinise it?

No, but I’m sure the EU leaders aren’t keeping huge secrets from their senior Parliamentarians. The EU Parliament is also made up from political parties that the EU leaders belong to - so it’s not rocket science. If Germany and France back a deal, their EU Parliament membership will largely follow.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Are the EU the only ones to be allowed to properly scrutinise it?

No matter who does the scrutiny, the answer will always be "no, come back in 3 months and try again" . . .

Many people knew years ago that the only way out was with 'no deal', events since the vote should, by now, have really shown many others this too.

Originally Posted by jfman

If Germany and France back a deal, their EU Parliament membership will largely follow.

Yes, if we get a deal to leave the EU, Italy (for one) will be next

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

No, but I’m sure the EU leaders aren’t keeping huge secrets from their senior Parliamentarians. The EU Parliament is also made up from political parties that the EU leaders belong to - so it’s not rocket science. If Germany and France back a deal, their EU Parliament membership will largely follow.

The old "I was just following orders" line.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The old "I was just following orders" line.

All party politics follows the same ideas. There’s probably something alien to the UK called trust between the EU Parliament, European Council and leaders of EU member states.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

All party politics follows the same ideas. There’s probably something alien to the UK called trust between the EU Parliament, European Council and leaders of EU member states.

EU and "trust"? Simply obeying Germany and France is not the same as party politics. There still should be proper scrutiny and not just by one side. Just a few words can change everything, eg "unless and until". The backstop breaks international law which is meant to allow unilateral withdrawal from an agreement.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The backstop breaks international law which is meant to allow unilateral withdrawal from an agreement.

What is your source for that allegation?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

EU and "trust"? Simply obeying Germany and France is not the same as party politics. There still should be proper scrutiny and not just by one side. Just a few words can change everything, eg "unless and until". The backstop breaks international law which is meant to allow unilateral withdrawal from an agreement.

Believe it or not some people do trust the EU to act in the collective interest of the Union - especially in negotiations with a future third country.

Do they think in Paris and Berlin they are scheming to stiff the rest of the membership in negotiations with the UK. To what end?

It’s a preposterous notion fuelled by eurosceptic propaganda that’s been peddled here for years. If we want to sabotage our own interests fine, but to assume the EU are doing the same is quite an astonishing, and unfounded, claim.

Originally Posted by nomadking

EU and "trust"? Simply obeying Germany and France is not the same as party politics. There still should be proper scrutiny and not just by one side. Just a few words can change everything, eg "unless and until". The backstop breaks international law which is meant to allow unilateral withdrawal from an agreement.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What is your source for that allegation?

It doesn't...

The Vienna Convention is very clear that withdrawal should be agreed, not unilateral.

http://theconversation.com/brexit-wh...utation-113591

Vienna Convention

So long as the consent of the other party can be obtained, a country can withdraw from any international agreement. This is supported by article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which states that the termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting states.

But even if it can’t obtain such consent from the EU to abandon the withdrawal treaty, the UK remains ultimately sovereign. And crucially, supremacy of EU law or of any other international instrument over domestic law does not stem from any international treaties, but from the will of the British parliament.

From this point of view, it really is of no consequence whether the UK has a legal right to withdrawal from the Irish backstop. Article 62 of the Vienna Convention, which allows withdrawal from an international treaty for fundamental change of circumstances, wouldn’t need to be used either.

A country contemplating withdrawing from an international treaty, without meeting the criteria to do so, is not likely to be deterred by the Vienna Convention. Nor would there be an effective enforcement mechanism to compel a country not to withdraw from a treaty, unlike in actions in investment tribunals brought about by private parties which have tangible financial consequences.

Constraints on unilateral withdrawal from the backstop (or the withdrawal treaty in its entirety) are not legal, but political – and those parliamentarians who suggest it would be possible to accept the agreement and then pull out are correct. But there will be consequences, often overlooked by those poring over the legal fine print.

An example from personal finance is useful here. If you stop paying your credit card bill, this may have legal consequences you can live with. Perhaps a bank or a debt collection agency would be willing to settle with you rather than assume the costs of going to court. Even if you’re not worried about the legal consequences, however, damaging your credit score will impact your future business or ability to get another loan.

A similar fate awaits a nation that develops a reputation for ignoring its international obligations. “Computer says no” is a frustrating response to anyone applying for a new credit card. It will be a lot worse when trying to replicate a score of international trade deals after Brexit.

And re Article 62 - this from the Conservative Attorney-General.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47568883

Article 62 of the treaty says that if there has been "a fundamental change of circumstances" following the conclusion of a treaty "which was not foreseen by the parties", then the countries involved would be allowed to withdraw from the treaty.

Ms Leadsom declined to have a debate on the matter, saying that Attorney General Geoffrey Cox had considered the matter and would comment further if he thought it was necessary.

Mr Cox said on Tuesday that if there is no solution found to stop the backstop arrangements coming into place, "the UK has no unilateral exit right to leave, unless there were a fundamental change of circumstance under Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties".

o, what would count as a "fundamental change"?

Jonathan Kelly, an international law expert at the firm Cleary Gottlieb, said: "A 'fundamental change' might be an outbreak of war, a revolution or something that completely changes the character of the international political landscape."

The International Court of Justice, which rules on such matters, has been clear that it sets the bar very high.

[jfman]

Indeed did the Czech Republic not fail in a challenge that Czechoslovakia no longer existed on one of these?