Talking of breaking the law...

[Tigercubrider]

https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2010/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf

 

[Tigercubrider]

oops

 

[fillyboy]

https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2010/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf

oops

“treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.”

Oops!

 

[gasbanni]

Is this post about the EU fishing in UK territorial waters ? That's illegal isn't it ?

 

[motorbiking]

We already have, it's called the Withdrawal act.

The only negotiations now are about a trading relationship, although the UK only want a bare bones deal anyway.

WA defines that as a future relationship. No future relationship deal and the EU courts ability to govern the U.K. comes to an end. This I think is the angle.

how could an EU court rule on a non member? The internal markets bill appears to make it the EUs problem which they don’t like?

 

[Notch7]

WA defines that as a future relationship. No future relationship deal and the EU courts ability to govern the U.K. comes to an end. This I think is the angle.

how could an EU court rule on a non member?

Its simply a dead cat, to get the media all busy making a big fuss.

It simply shows how desperate this government must be to stoop so low.

Frankly it's an embarrassment, the UK behaving like a South American country full of drug barons

 

[Notch7]

WA defines that as a future relationship. No future relationship deal and the EU courts ability to govern the U.K. comes to an end. This I think is the angle.

how could an EU court rule on a non member? The internal markets bill appears to make it the EUs problem which they don’t like?

That's a rubbish argument, as you well know.


As this professor of law says, it's a non sequitur:

"Contrary to the Government’s position, the UK, like every other State, is required in international law to abide by its treaty obligations. Neither parliamentary sovereignty nor the notion of dualism is any answer to that point"

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Furthermore, it doesn't break International Law, thanks to a precedent set in a recent court case brought by your very own Gina Miller.

“treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.”

*snigger*

Parliament voted for the WA, and all of its implication. Don't you remember?
BJ should have given them more time to read the small print. The fact that he didn't is not sufficient excuse to backtrack now.

 

[motorbiking]

The quote is correct, but does not challenge the legal angle the govt appears to be following. I’m not at all supporting the govt position. I’m exploring the legal opportunities, which no doubt they’ve had plenty of advice on.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I don't think that is 100% Correct..

Under the WA, the CJEU will no longer have general jurisdiction over the UK in relation to any acts that take place on or after 1 January 2021. Whether it will have any role to play in terms of oversight of any future relationship agreements between the UK and the EU will depend on what is negotiated.

The Political Declaration agreed by the UK and the EU, only makes clear that insofar as the ‘future relationship’ contains concepts of EU law, disputes about those concepts will have to be referred to the CJEU. This must be in a process similar to that set up by Article 174 of the WA, in which the CJEU can offer a binding interpretation of EU law.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit-next-steps-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu-and-the-uk/

No deal would question the concept of "Future Relationship" as defined.

a) No deal would question the concept of "Future Relationship" as defined. Only in your opinion. In anyone else's opinion a No Deal is just another type of 'future relationship'.

b) We are currently in a 'future relationship'. We're in the transition phase which is a relationship.

c) The ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in cases of unresolved disputes.

d) The ECJ will no longer have 'general jurisdiction' over the UK, but will continue to have specific jurisdiction in issues that were accounted for and specified in the WA, The UK cannot renege on that WA because it doesn't like what it agreed to

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The quote is correct, but does not challenge the legal angle the govt appears to be following. I’m not at all supporting the govt position. I’m exploring the legal opportunities, which no doubt they’ve had plenty of advice on.

Precisely. Advice which is far more qualified than you or I.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

 

[motorbiking]

It’s not my opinion. It’s the angle they appear to be exploring. The WA is a B in an A to C transition. No C and then Rules agreed in B about C are exposed to challenges.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Hey Notchy baby.

HMG LEGAL POSITION: UKIM BILL AND NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL This is the Government’s legal position on the UK Internal Market Bill (“the Bill”) which was introduced on 9 September. The purpose of the Bill is to promote the continued functioning of the internal market in the UK after the conclusion of the transition period provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Bill also provides for how aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the Withdrawal Agreement apply in the UK’s domestic law. In particular it ensures that the government will be able to deliver its commitments to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and to strengthen and maintain the UK internal market. Clauses 42 and 43 of the Bill give HMG the power to make regulations to (i) disapply or modify the application of any exit procedures that would otherwise be applicable to goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and (ii) make regulations setting out how the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol on State aid are to be given effect for the purposes of domestic law. The clauses provide that these powers may be exercised in a way that is incompatible with provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement. Clause 45 of the Bill expressly provides that these clauses, and any regulations made under them, have effect notwithstanding any international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent. This ‘notwithstanding provision’ partially disapplies Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement because it removes the possibility of challenge before domestic courts to enforce the rights and remedies provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement. The effect is to disapply the EU law concept of ‘direct effect’. This is the case regardless of whether any regulations made under clause 42 or 43 of the Bill are in fact incompatible with the Withdrawal Agreement. It is an established principle of international law that a state is obliged to discharge its treaty obligations in good faith. This is, and will remain, the key principle in informing the UK’s approach to international relations. However, in the difficult and highly exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is important to remember the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is sovereign as a matter of domestic law and can pass legislation which is in breach of the UK’s Treaty obligations. Parliament would not be acting unconstitutionally in enacting such legislation. This ‘dualist’ approach is shared by other, similar legal systems such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Under this approach, treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone. This principle was recently approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5. The legislation which implements the Withdrawal Agreement including the Northern Ireland Protocol is expressly subject to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament’s ability to pass provisions that would take precedence over the Withdrawal Agreement was expressly confirmed in section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, with specific reference to the EU law concept of ‘direct effect

Notice the references to Domestic Law and International Law?
Yes Parliament is sovereign as regards Domestic Law, but with International Law, Parliament is not sovereign.

Parliament approved the WA. therefore it is passed into law. Parliament can repeal that WA, as far as Domestic Law is concerned if it chooses to, but that does not remove the requirement to respect the Treaty it signed, on an International level. Only a new treaty or a mutually agreed revision (or a legal challenge) can change those agreements.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

It’s not my opinion. It’s the angle they appear to be exploring. The WA is a B in an A to C transition. No C and then Rules agreed in B about C are exposed to challenges.

I'm sure those 'finer challenges' will be discussed in depth when UK is accused by other countries of disregarding international law.
It is, and always will be seen as UK breaking international law on a treaty.