breaking the law

[mutantpoodle]

a straightforward question NOT POLITICAL

much in the media about government breaking the law iro this withdrawl agreement made at end last year

but I ask...if an elected government cannot pass a bill to change a law, does that mean that agreement stands FOR EVER
and cannot EVER be changed by anyone/any government of any persuasion

and if it does NOT mean that why is there such a fuss about the change (excluding the personal views/opinions)

[swill453]

The point is that it's an internationally agreed treaty, that one of the parties is going to unilaterally overrule.

Scott.

[SalvorHardin]

a straightforward question NOT POLITICAL

much in the media about government breaking the law iro this withdrawl agreement made at end last year

but I ask...if an elected government cannot pass a bill to change a law, does that mean that agreement stands FOR EVER
and cannot EVER be changed by anyone/any government of any persuasion

and if it does NOT mean that why is there such a fuss about the change (excluding the personal views/opinions)

In law a British government cannot bind its successors. A later government is perfectly entitled to rewrite the law. There is an argument that the Reform Act of 1832 is an exception in that it may bind its successors, but that's about it.

Countries routinely break international law on a regular basis; Britain isn't an exception. For example, most NATO member states are in breach of international law because they aren't meeting some of their required commitments (Spain especially with its claim over Gibraltar, but there's a strong agreement that the 2% of GDP spending commitment is binding). China broke international law by not informing the WHO about the outbreak when it should have (and it routinely breaks international law in its treatment of Hong Kong). But the media can't use these examples to bash the British government, so they remain silent.

Also the EU is in breach of international law. Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement requires the EU to negotiate in good faith, which it is not doing so because it is demanding control over an independent country's sovereign territory (arguably EU membership is in breach of the Bill of Rights anyway).

[GoSeigen]

a straightforward question NOT POLITICAL

much in the media about government breaking the law iro this withdrawl agreement made at end last year

but I ask...if an elected government cannot pass a bill to change a law, does that mean that agreement stands FOR EVER
and cannot EVER be changed by anyone/any government of any persuasion

and if it does NOT mean that why is there such a fuss about the change (excluding the personal views/opinions)

Of course, anyone can break any promise or agreement they make, even just a few months after solemnly making it. It is what it says about your integrity and competence that is the point.


GS

[mutantpoodle]

The point is that it's an internationally agreed treaty, that one of the parties is going to unilaterally overrule.

Scott.

so you are saying that unless the EU (in this case) agree to change that bit of agreement it stands forever regardless of any change of government etc etc??

or...we get media hysteria about our interntional integrity

I find that unacceptable...but lets not get political!!

[swill453]

so you are saying that unless the EU (in this case) agree to change that bit of agreement it stands forever regardless of any change of government etc etc??

Well I'm no lawyer, but it seems obvious to me that the government-of-the-day must be able to make legal commitments to other countries that they* then can't renege on on a whim.

* They or a change of government. But bear in mind that for the issue in the news at the moment, there hasn't even been a change of government.

Scott.

[johnhemming]

Its the Vienna treaty that guides this. The Vienna treaty accepts that at times treaties can be breached on a unilateral basis, but as a general point treaties should be stuck to.

Hence we have situations like Gibraltar which remains as it does as a result of a treaty from 1713.

[UncleEbenezer]

The point is that it's an internationally agreed treaty, that one of the parties is going to unilaterally overrule.

Scott.

so you are saying that unless the EU (in this case) agree to change that bit of agreement it stands forever regardless of any change of government etc etc??

or...we get media hysteria about our interntional integrity

I find that unacceptable...but lets not get political!!

Any international treaty constrains what you can do. That's what treaties do. Right down to the level of "we agree not to nuke you" or "we agree not to release germ warfare against you" (the latter one Dubya withdrew his country from), and right up to complex deals like those of the UN or EU.

If any of the political diatribe a few posts above were remotely true, it could be tested in the relevant international courts. Even if a case were far too dodgy for governments to get associated with, there are enough hedge fund managers with the funds, and who would just love another opportunity to make billions disrupting big economies - particularly the EU, which is both the world's biggest economy and seen as a softer target than the US or China.

A country could withdraw formally from a treaty, including those that empower international courts. Some in UK politics have spoken of withdrawing from (Churchill's) Human Rights convention, though they're (hitherto) only a fringe.

[UncleEbenezer]

On the currently-topical subject, I can't help thinking if they really intended to violate the treaty, they'd have been much quieter about it. If challenged, vigorous denial and attack the challenger.

[richlist]

On the currently-topical subject, I can't help thinking if they really intended to violate the treaty, they'd have been much quieter about it. If challenged, vigorous denial and attack the challenger.

But wouldn't such a denial of an obvious truth damage the reputation of a law abiding country ?

[UncleEbenezer]

On the currently-topical subject, I can't help thinking if they really intended to violate the treaty, they'd have been much quieter about it. If challenged, vigorous denial and attack the challenger.

But wouldn't such a denial of an obvious truth damage the reputation of a law abiding country ?

We have it now. On The World Tonight, outright lies from Andrew Bridgen. If they intended to go through with it, that kind of rhetoric would be coming from Johnson and Gove.

[NeilW]

There is a fundamental principle. There is no law without enforcement. Without that they are just words on a page.

Rather too many people are throwing around "EU going to court", "breaking the law" and other such nonsense as though that actually matters at the sovereign state level. It doesn't because there are no enforcement mechanisms, not really any recognised courts as such and any agreements towards enforcement are weak and unstable. It's the same at the WTO where the worst sanction is that somebody can refuse to sell you their stuff - which naturally ensures unemployment in their own country and/or a supply glut which collapses prices everywhere. Other sovereign areas are entitled to cut off their nose to spite their face if they want. That's a political decision they have to make.

The UK is a Dualist system, which means that International Agreements cannot bind on the UK domestic sphere *at all* without a mirroring Act of Parliament. That constitution comes from our history. Control over the domestic sphere was removed completely from The Crown after the civil war and vested in Parliament, but the international sphere remains with The Crown, although increasingly tempered by Parliament as the Miller case showed.

Other than that the two operate completely separately.

Clause 38 of the UK Withdrawal Act which enables the EU withdrawal agreement in UK law specifically states that nothing in the Act removes any sovereignty from Parliament. Which means what Parliament gives, Parliament can take away. And there isn't anything anybody can do to change that - short of trying to invade the UK and overthrow Parliament.

In the case of International Agreements Parliament *is* the court in the UK and it decides what the agreement means in UK terms. It is the sole interpreter and arbiter in this regard.

Those who believe in the globalist legalist order where we all must bow down to words on pages as determined by a self-selected cabal of Very Clever People will of course not like that. However those of us who believe the democratic UK system works will just ignore them, and show to the rest of the world there is nothing the globalists can do about it. Words have no effect without actual Hard Power behind them.

[NeilW]

it could be tested in the relevant international courts

No international court has standing, and no judgment they enter in to can be enforced. Certainly not against a nuclear power intent on the opposite course of action.

This is a political matter, not a legal one. The map is being returned to its previous state and where legal ends and politics begins returned to what it used to be - with the nation state.

[NeilW]

there hasn't even been a change of government.

Scott.

There has. It changed in Dec 2019. This Parliament is not the same as the last one. Government comes from the Parliament.

The Withdrawal Agreement was entered into in International terms under the last parliament.

And in the UK no parliament can bind a successor - or even itself. It can pass one Act at the beginning of the year, and then repeal it again at the end. All it needs is a vote in Parliament.

[swill453]

there hasn't even been a change of government.

There has. It changed in Dec 2019. This Parliament is not the same as the last one. Government comes from the Parliament.

The Withdrawal Agreement was entered into in International terms under the last parliament.

And in the UK no parliament can bind a successor - or even itself. It can pass one Act at the beginning of the year, and then repeal it again at the end. All it needs is a vote in Parliament.

The withdrawal agreement was signed in 2020.

This, and your other points, are irrelevant to the question.

Scott.

[johnhemming]

And in the UK no parliament can bind a successor - or even itself. It can pass one Act at the beginning of the year, and then repeal it again at the end. All it needs is a vote in Parliament.

There are complications to this, but when we were a member of the EU, European court orders did not have the force of law in the UK. The UK parliament could have changed the law explicitly to reject any EU law. The UK courts would then enforce the UK law.

However, the other EU countries would not have accepted this.

We have signed up to a large number of international treaties. If we move into a world in which the treaties have no lasting significance then everything becomes shifting sands. Borders can then be changed at a whim by use of force if necessary and a countries solemn commitment means nothing.

Hence the principle is that if a country agrees to something (and ratifies the treaty) it should stick by it.

The fact that according to UK domestic law parliament can ignore a treaty does not mean that this is a good idea.

This is another of the Johnson/Cummings proposals that will not end well for the UK.

[NeilW]

The withdrawal agreement was signed in 2020.

This, and your other points, are irrelevant to the question.

Scott.

Thank you for that. Spoken like a true superior.

[NeilW]

If we move into a world in which the treaties have no lasting significance then everything becomes shifting sands. Borders can then be changed at a whim by use of force if necessary and a countries solemn commitment means nothing.

Correct. Because everything is shifting sands. The idea that Very Clever People can set things in concrete forever is belied by the failure of the "Right to Bear Arms" failure of the US constitution.

Ossification is not a great idea. There are differences of opinion. And a people have a right to rule themselves without outside interference. Which is the path we have selected by vote.

Circumstances change. The EU has been completely intransigent and refused to accept that the UK is a sovereign state, which is what the EU agreed to do, so the UK parliament will take that snub and alter its legal constitution in response to that. And it has every right to do so. We're tired of playing EU games.

Whether the EU sees it like that or not is besides the point. Ultimately there is no final God-like arbiter over what is and isn't the 'correct' interpretation. If the EU doesn't like it, it can lump it.

[swill453]

The withdrawal agreement was signed in 2020.

This, and your other points, are irrelevant to the question.

Thank you for that. Spoken like a true superior.

Not really, just being aware which board we're on, and that the question has been answered already. Political replies like yours are likely to get the thread locked (which it probably should be), moved, chopped or deleted.

Scott.

[SalvorHardin]

Circumstances change. The EU has been completely intransigent and refused to accept that the UK is a sovereign state, which is what the EU agreed to do, so the UK parliament will take that snub and alter its legal constitution in response to that. And it has every right to do so. We're tired of playing EU games.

Whether the EU sees it like that or not is besides the point. Ultimately there is no final God-like arbiter over what is and isn't the 'correct' interpretation. If the EU doesn't like it, it can lump it.

This is the key point. The EU still refuses to accept that Britain is now an independent country and we don't bow down to it or its courts. I suspect that a lot of the people complaining about this haven't realised that Britain is no longer a member of the European Union.

The government recently published a pretty strong rebuttal in which a major part of the argument is that Parliamentary Supremacy trumps both EU law and international law. In support of this they cited the Supreme Court's judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017). This is the case won by Gina Miller which stopped the government from triggering withdrawal from the EU without an Act of Parliament. Epic level trolling to cite this case, using the remainers' argument against them. ROTFLMAO. Guido Fawkes has the story:

https://order-order.com/2020/09/10/eu-demands-that-uk-rewrite-internal-market-bill/

Recently Barnier threatened to use the withdrawal agreement to stop shipments of food between Britain and Northern Ireland. He's lucky that someone like me isn't in office; I'd see this as the EU threatening to impose a blockade which would allow us to trigger Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

What we're seeing is part of the negotiations taking place in public.

Besides, we know that the vast majority of complaints aren't about breaking international law. If it was then surely they'd be equally outraged at the EU being in breach of Article 184 of the withdrawal agreement. Or Spain regularly breaching the Treaty of Utrecht. Rather it's just yet another attempt to keep Britain in the EU.