Talking of breaking the law...

[motorbiking]

Duplicate

 

[motorbiking]

Absolutely.

now stand back and ask yourself what’s left of that treaty in a no deal scenario. EU court has no jurisdiction to bind non members. It’s jurisdiction is to rule on EU law.

capital punishment is illegal in the U.K. we have no power to enforce this on other countries

It is, and always will be seen as UK breaking international law on a treaty.

this week maybe. But next week it will be added to a long list of international treaties at odds with domestic law.


Anyway this is all text book negotiation. Storm before calm.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Absolutely.

now stand back and ask yourself what’s left of that treaty in a no deal scenario. EU court has no jurisdiction to bind non members. It’s jurisdiction is to rule on EU law.

The WA was drawn up in place of the Back Stop. It was (especially the NI Protocol) designed to ensure peace and stability in Ireland. Just because there is No Deal does not invalidate the WA. It was designed with the possibility of No Deal in mind.
The ECJ is the ultimate arbiter, specified in the NI Protocol, in case of unresolved disputes in the NI Protocol.

 

[fillyboy]

The ECJ is the ultimate arbiter, specified in the NI Protocol, in case of unresolved disputes in the NI Protocol.

Not if the bill get's through Parliament (and I realise it may not)

 

[noseall]

now stand back and ask yourself what’s left of that treaty in a no deal scenario

Precisely.

Why dither. If it is Bozzas intention to forfeit all trade benefits with EU nations, why does he not get on with it? The penalty for tearing up the treaty would be no subsequent beneficial trade agreements with the EU and suspicion from other trading nations. Big deal - we have the USA to fall back on. The UK will prosper, Bozza said so.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Not if the bill get's through Parliament (and I realise it may not)

Domestic legislation does not and cannot change international obligations.
The WA passed through Parliament with its approval. If it didn't know what it was doing, it can't just pretend it didn't happen.
But a signature from UK's representative was sufficient for UK to accept the treaty.

Imagine Scotland creating a new law which directly contravenes an existing UK law. It would not be worth the paper its written on.

Remember the recent controversy about NI and abortion, UK threatened to overrule NI assembly?

 

[motorbiking]

Domestic legislation does not and cannot change international obligations.

Frequently it does contradict it. The obligation remains, they are just ignored or perhaps "interpreted differently". Good faith or bad faith all sorts of international treaties are not enshrined in domestic law. Immigration, weapons trade, domestic subsidy... etc.. Plenty of European states ready to stare at their shuffling shoes or respond with a Gallic shrug.

IMO the backstop or WA, was probably negotiated in bad faith on both sides. On the one side there was the goal of locking the UK in purgatory as "client state" forever until we took what were were given. On the other, I think there was always a view that no deal could severely restrict the EUs authority and we could test their minerals.

We do seem to be getting worked up... it is (I repeat) a negotiation tactic and it appears to have worked to some degree.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

We do seem to be getting worked up... it is (I repeat) a negotiation tactic and it appears to have worked to some degree.

Precisely, it is a negotiating tactic, but a poorly thought out one at that.
It has been obvious to all and sundry that UK desperately needs a deal, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted the last 12 months (four years) not preparing for a No Deal. And in the event of a No Deal, they have wasted all that time.
They've tried stalling in negotiations, in the hope EU would walk away, that didn't work. Now they've tried threatening to renege on the Treaty, for the same objective, that hasn't worked either.
Now what will they try next? All that brinkmanship does is to a) delay the inevitable, and b) create more uncertainty, and c) reduce the opportunity for a better deal.
Brexit is going to happen, and all that Boris can do is to limit the damage that will be inflicted.