Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why Are The E U S S R So Terrified?
39 Answers
https:/
we haven't even passed the law yet, let alone invoked it. All they have to do is stop playing silly burgers and do a deal, why is that so difficult?
we haven't even passed the law yet, let alone invoked it. All they have to do is stop playing silly burgers and do a deal, why is that so difficult?
Answers
//If Parliament were passing a law that overrode a previous *domestic* law then that would, of course, be within its power.// Parliament is not even going that far. It is merely reinstating a previous treaty...You know the one that treacherous May and her traitorous helpers tried to bypass with an under the radar agreement with the eager to backstab Britain...
19:31 Thu 01st Oct 2020
//Has the ECJ still got any authority over the UK?//
Part of the argument concerning the Northern Ireland issue is that the EU would determine which goods can pass from the rest of the UK to that part of the UK unhindered. If there was any disagreement with that process the ECJ would be called upon to adjudicate.
Part of the argument concerning the Northern Ireland issue is that the EU would determine which goods can pass from the rest of the UK to that part of the UK unhindered. If there was any disagreement with that process the ECJ would be called upon to adjudicate.
jim: "I don't understand how you can ask why it's so difficult to reach a deal and be serious. Have the last four+ years shown you nothing? " - yes they have shown me many things, for example:
1) The EUSSR do not negotiate they demand and wont move on to another subject until they get their way.
2) Our side is full of calloborators that want the worst outcome for the UK, presumably so they can run around afterwards saying they were correct.
3) You cannot do a deal when one side wants 100% it's own way.
4) The EUSSR want tentacles in the UK so they can make a hash of everything to discourage any other of their enslaved nations from leaving the "Club".
5) the only language the understand is the preparedness, if necessary, to walk away with no deal.
1) The EUSSR do not negotiate they demand and wont move on to another subject until they get their way.
2) Our side is full of calloborators that want the worst outcome for the UK, presumably so they can run around afterwards saying they were correct.
3) You cannot do a deal when one side wants 100% it's own way.
4) The EUSSR want tentacles in the UK so they can make a hash of everything to discourage any other of their enslaved nations from leaving the "Club".
5) the only language the understand is the preparedness, if necessary, to walk away with no deal.
I don't see why anyone would want a "no deal" either, but there we are. It's always been the equivalent of "if you don't talk me down, I'll jump".
I'm surprised the EU didn't hold off until this passed through the Lords, especially given the likelihood that it would be modified there, and given my understanding that talks were progressing still. But there we are. The UK stood up and proudly announced that they were planning to break International Law, which was a stupid thing to say and to plan.
I'm surprised the EU didn't hold off until this passed through the Lords, especially given the likelihood that it would be modified there, and given my understanding that talks were progressing still. But there we are. The UK stood up and proudly announced that they were planning to break International Law, which was a stupid thing to say and to plan.
jim: "The UK stood up and proudly announced that they were planning to break International Law" - no they did not, stop your misrepresentation. The Bill does not break any law, you know that but prefer to obfuscate because you do not side with your own country. You know this too but I will say it for the benefit of others. The Bill means that when certain conditions arise the government can legally take a path that may be contrary to a past treaty. That does not mean that we have or will break any such treaty but it does mean that the EUSSR know that we are prepared to if they make it necessary by their decrees or activities.
TTT: Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, stated clearly that "this Bill does breach International Law [in a specific and limited way]". The Legal advice from the Attorney General amounted to saying that Parliament could pass legislation to break International Law, which would clearly not be an issue if this Bill didn't (in its present form) break international law. The UK Government's official position is that this legislation breaks international law.
// ... you ... prefer to obfuscate because you do not side with your own country. //
Stuff and nonsense. I want the UK to uphold International Law. How you can equate that with an accusation that is tantamount to treachery is warped and twisted illogic. It is, for example, worth pointing out that the loudest voice against this legislation in the Lords at the moment is Lord Michael Howard, who has been a Brexit supporter since before there was even a referendum campaign.
I don't know how else to put this: I want the best for the UK, I am glad to live in the UK, I support the UK, and just because we disagree on how to achieve the best for the UK doesn't make me in any sense a traitor or collaborator. It's a pathetic accusation, or a pathetic interpretation of my position, and I'll thank you to never make that suggestion again.
Stuff and nonsense. I want the UK to uphold International Law. How you can equate that with an accusation that is tantamount to treachery is warped and twisted illogic. It is, for example, worth pointing out that the loudest voice against this legislation in the Lords at the moment is Lord Michael Howard, who has been a Brexit supporter since before there was even a referendum campaign.
I don't know how else to put this: I want the best for the UK, I am glad to live in the UK, I support the UK, and just because we disagree on how to achieve the best for the UK doesn't make me in any sense a traitor or collaborator. It's a pathetic accusation, or a pathetic interpretation of my position, and I'll thank you to never make that suggestion again.
"The Bill means that when certain conditions arise the government can legally take a path that may be contrary to a past treaty. That does not mean that we have or will break any such treaty"
If an action is or will be, contrary to conditions in an agreed Treaty, why would that not be breaking that Treaty?
If an action is or will be, contrary to conditions in an agreed Treaty, why would that not be breaking that Treaty?
// so making a law that potentially allows for breaking of a law is itself a breaking of the law? //
Not really an answer, because it confuses domestic and international law. Even the Government understands this: it argued that its actions were fine because of this "dualist" system. I won't pretend to be qualified enough to understand if they are right or wrong, although it's not difficult to find out that the majority of legal experts disagree with the Government's position. Nevertheless, you're confusing two levels of law. If Parliament were passing a law that overrode a previous *domestic* law then that would, of course, be within its power.
Not really an answer, because it confuses domestic and international law. Even the Government understands this: it argued that its actions were fine because of this "dualist" system. I won't pretend to be qualified enough to understand if they are right or wrong, although it's not difficult to find out that the majority of legal experts disagree with the Government's position. Nevertheless, you're confusing two levels of law. If Parliament were passing a law that overrode a previous *domestic* law then that would, of course, be within its power.
