The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	What is the international law its breaking ? its a real question. all the news has said is that "it will break international law" but i dont know what law it is. Is it something to do with the GFA ?

The International Law it would be breaking is the Withdrawal Agreement signed at the beginning of the year.

It's concerning as it's something the UK doesn't do. Listening to the temerity of French boring on about it who have quite happily broken International Law in the past is quite something though!

I'll await the details before casting judgment, it's important to remember that these are unprecedented times.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	The International Law it would be breaking is the Withdrawal Agreement signed at the beginning of the year. It's concerning as it's something the UK doesn't do. Listening to the temerity of French boring on about it who have quite happily broken International Law in the past is quite something though! I'll await the details before casting judgment, it's important to remember that these are unprecedented times.

Perhaps Boris believes laws are there to be interpreted by courts, Hence why many people living in countries with Napoleonic law don't understand.

[HickvonFrick]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Perhaps Boris believes laws are there to be interpreted by courts, Hence why many people living in countries with Napoleonic law don't understand.

He's certainly got some form in acting in a way such that the courts have some interpreting to do.

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	The International Law it would be breaking is the Withdrawal Agreement signed at the beginning of the year. It's concerning as it's something the UK doesn't do. Listening to the temerity of French boring on about it who have quite happily broken International Law in the past is quite something though! I'll await the details before casting judgment, it's important to remember that these are unprecedented times.

Strange behaviour by the UK Government proving they cannot be trusted to comply with a recent agreement at a time when they want to create new free trade deals.

[John William]

	Quote:	marton
	Strange behaviour by the UK Government proving they cannot be trusted to comply with a recent agreement at a time when they want to create new free trade deals.

Boris and the Conservative government already 'have form' when it comes to breaking the law when it suits them.

The Guardian - Johnsons suspension of Parliament was unlawful, Supreme Court rules

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	John William
	Boris and the Conservative government already 'have form' when it comes to breaking the law when it suits them. The Guardian - Johnsons suspension of Parliament was unlawful, Supreme Court rules

Remember the sheer outrage when that happened? And what was the result? Boris Johnson won by a landslide a few months later!

The moral of the story is clear, just because something is law, it doesn't make it "right". The last Parliament behaved appallingly, and it took an election to make them realise this, and on that occasion breaking the law was necessary and acceptable in the eyes of the people.

If, as the Government claim, the Withdrawal Agreement risks the integrity of the UK internal market and sovereignty of the UK, then they may be "right" in breaking international law.

[henk]

Ministers will be given powers to “disapply” elements of the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements in the internal market bill, in a move that legal experts say is an “eye-watering” breach of international law.

The bill, published on Wednesday, seeks to give powers to ministers to unilaterally decide how to apply the Northern Ireland protocol in relation to checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

It also unpicks article 10 of the protocol in relation to state aid and states that it will “not be interpreted in accordance with case law of the European court” or “in accordance with any legislative act of the EU”.

This is a contradiction of the section of the protocol that is underpinned by the “direct effect” of EU law, which would enable any individual or company to rely on EU law in a local court, and which was signed off by Boris Johnson in January.

Legal academics pointed to paragraphs 42, 43, and 45 of the internal market bill as a blunt rewriting of the protocol.

Brandon Lewis breaks cardinal law for MPs and tells the half-truth | John Crace
“This is a remarkable piece of legislation and it expressly contravenes our international legal obligations to a point that the legislation itself says this is the intention, as did Brandon Lewis [the Northern Ireland secretary] yesterday,” said Catherine Barnard, a professor of European law at Cambridge University, who added the bill was “really eye-watering” in its explicitness.

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Remember the sheer outrage when that happened? And what was the result? Boris Johnson won by a landslide a few months later! The moral of the story is clear, just because something is law, it doesn't make it "right". The last Parliament behaved appallingly, and it took an election to make them realise this, and on that occasion breaking the law was necessary and acceptable in the eyes of the people. If, as the Government claim, the Withdrawal Agreement risks the integrity of the UK internal market and sovereignty of the UK, then they may be "right" in breaking international law.

Are we back to the Libertarian, Liberal or Conservative debate again? So now you're a libertarian -- laws should be obeyed only when it suits you? I can just imagine a slew of cases being thrown out of court: "I was indeed driving at 160 mph, Your Honour, but that's because I wanted to and I found the speed limit not to my linking. I refer you to the precedent set by HM Government..."

[NotAllThere]

There's a difference between committing a criminal offence and doing something that it isn't legal. Governments do stuff that isn't legal quite often. Then it's challenged in the courts, they're told "no, you can't do that", and they have to reverse the decision.

But Boris is a prat.

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:
	Are we back to the Libertarian, Liberal or Conservative debate again? So now your a libertarian -- laws should be obeyed only when it suits you? I can just imagine a slew of cases being thrown out of court: "I was indeed driving at 160 mph, Your Honour, but that's because I wanted to and I found the speed limit not to my linking. I refer you to the precedent set by HM Government..."

It was illegal to be homosexual pre-1967, or get an abortion pre-1968. The law tends to be in black and white yet the world we live in is shades of grey. I believe in the Rule of Law, however I also see it's not perfect. Just because something is in law, it doesn't make it right. Sometimes it is necessary to break the law.

[MusicChick]

	Quote:	NotAllThere
	There's a difference between committing a criminal offence and doing something that it isn't legal. Governments do stuff that isn't legal quite often. Then it's challenged in the courts, they're told "no, you can't do that", and they have to reverse the decision. But Boris is a prat.

But you gotta give it to him, an efficient prat.

[amogles]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	It was illegal to be homosexual pre-1967, or get an abortion pre-1968. The law tends to be in black and white yet the world we live in is shades of grey. I believe in the Rule of Law, however I also see it's not perfect. Just because something is in law, it doesn't make it right. Sometimes it is necessary to break the law.

The people who hid Anne Frank were acting illegally.
the people who arrested her and sent her to a concentration camp were acting legally.

The law is not always right.

	Quote:	NotAllThere
	There's a difference between committing a criminal offence and doing something that it isn't legal. Governments do stuff that isn't legal quite often.

... and as my learned friend NotAllThere has noted, I wasn't breaking the law, I merely did something that wasn't legal.

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	It was illegal to be homosexual pre-1967, or get an abortion pre-1968. The law tends to be in black and white yet the world we live in is shades of grey. I believe in the Rule of Law, however I also see it's not perfect. Just because something is in law, it doesn't make it right. Sometimes it is necessary to break the law.

Crikey, I can't keep up with you. Now you're an anarchist! I don't think there's a political party for them, is there? It'd be a bit self-defeating, wouldn't it?

[marton]

	Quote:	amogles
	The people who hid Anne Frank were acting illegally. the people who arrested her and sent her to a concentration camp were acting legally. The law is not always right.

How do you define right?

[HickvonFrick]

	Quote:	marton
	How do you define right?

Where a law is morally justifiable principally because breaking said law would cause harm to someone.

Every single one of us will have broken a law in our time. Most of the time (I hope), it will have been a victimless crime, either because the law was wrong per se (see the Anne Frank example), or even if the law has some justification in general terms we knew it didn't really matter on that particular occasion (think 17 year old self getting a pint).

[st2lemans]

	Quote:
	So now you're a libertarian -- laws should be obeyed only when it suits you?

That is not what being a libertarian is about.

Tom

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Remember the sheer outrage when that happened? And what was the result? Boris Johnson won by a landslide a few months later! The moral of the story is clear, just because something is law, it doesn't make it "right". The last Parliament behaved appallingly, and it took an election to make them realise this, and on that occasion breaking the law was necessary and acceptable in the eyes of the people. If, as the Government claim, the Withdrawal Agreement risks the integrity of the UK internal market and sovereignty of the UK, then they may be "right" in breaking international law.

Such actions have their price

	Quote:
	‘Absolutely no chance’ of US-UK trade deal passing Congress if Boris Johnson damages Good Friday Agreement, Pelosi warns

Source

	Quote:	st2lemans
	That is not what being a libertarian is about. Tom

Libertarians are opposed to laws restricting freedoms, typically where they have been passed for the greater good of society. Speed limits and mandated mask-wearing are examples of this. Some libertarians stick to their principles and make a point of disobeying laws with which they disagree. Most of the time, they do this when the potential consequence aren't too great. Not wearing a seatbelt, for example (low risk of an accident, affordable fine if caught). Presumably that's why you occasionally don't wear a seatbelt.

[amogles]

	Quote:	HickvonFrick
	Every single one of us will have broken a law in our time. Most of the time (I hope), it will have been a victimless crime, either because the law was wrong per se (see the Anne Frank example), or even if the law has some justification in general terms we knew it didn't really matter on that particular occasion (think 17 year old self getting a pint).

Or simply because there are so many laws that we may well break several of them without even suspecting there are laws about that. Some are vague.

For example there is allegedly a law that says you must have at least 5 CHF on you. Maybe the intent back in the day was noble, especially before cell phones and all that. But if you must always have 5CHF and you interpret the law literally, you can't actually spend it so it is of no use - except maybe to your heirs when you pop your clogs.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	marton
	Such actions have their price Source

I get a bit uncomfortable about this point. The GFA fixed two countries who were at war., which is great.

the UK is trying to leave the EU. To do that you patently arent going to have borders without checks otherwise people will use that route for smuggling (to avoid customers). this is also pretty basic logic.

So as I understand it whats being said is, if there's a border between the two sides, that'll mean the GFA terms arent being met, so we won't give you a trade agreement.

So unless im wrong in my logic, the threat is, you can't leave the EU because of the Irish peace accord. i.e. threat of possible return to violence trumps being allowed to leave an economic trading block.

I follow all the arguments ang logic, but it just comes across to me as "you'll let me copy you're maths homework or I'll smash your face in".