Breaking the law

[Newchodge]

I am a little surprised that no one else has started a thread about this so here goes.

Having spent some considerable time negotiating the withdrawal agreement with the EU, and having insisted that the agreement did not amount to a problem for N Ireland, despite many, many people, including the Ulster unionists, (and me) warning that it would result in a border down the North Sea between N Ireland and the rest of the UK, this government has 'just realised' that the Withdrawal Agreement may result in a border down the North Sea between N Ireland and the rest of the UK. Who would have thought it, eh?

They therefore propose passing legislation that allows them to ignore the parts of the Withdrawal Agreement that they don't like. You remember, the Withdrawal Agreement that they sold to the people of the UK as the right solution? The one that this government signed?

The government's N ireland secretary has announced that the new bill will be a breach of international law, but in a very specific and limited way. So it's OK, then? During my legal training I do not recall ever being taught that it is acceptable for a law to be broken in a very specific and limited way. For example it was never suggested that defence to murder could be that the killer only murdered the victim in a very specific and limited way.

There have been many hilarious quotes from government ministers (hilarious if one is prepared to ignore the harm that will accrue if this bill is passed) as they squirm around trying to make excuses for this move. I found this one the funniest so far:

Justice Secretary Robert Buckland stated that he would resign if the UK ended up breaking international law "in a way I find unacceptable". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54137643 So the JUSTICE secretary of this country believes that there is a way to break the law that he finds acceptable?

You really could not make it up.

 

[Mr D]

Needs to get it through parliament? Should be easy to block then.

Breaking international law? Yes many countries have done that over the years. Doesn't make much difference. We'll still trade with them, still seek to copy them in some aspects.

Can be done if can be self justified. Like with a note from your mum or your doctor or something.

 

[John Hemming]

Breaking international law? Yes many countries have done that over the years. Doesn't make much difference. We'll still trade with them, still seek to copy them in some aspects.

What examples of this are you thinking of?

 

[Mr D]

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/25/6978...-up-control-of-chagos-islands?t=1600004766109

http://markcurtis.info/2017/01/23/britains-violations-of-international-law/

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ke-international-law-by-invading-iraq-in-2003

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/mar/02/uk.internationaleducationnews

UK good enough for you? There are multiple examples elsewhere for other countries.

 

[Newchodge]

What examples of this are you thinking of?

Did you read the post?

 

[John Hemming]

UK good enough for you? There are multiple examples elsewhere for other countries.

I was wondering if you were thinking of examples where a country agrees a treaty and then tries to repudiate it within less than a year.

Whereas I would agree you about the details you propose those are not situations where a country is opening stating that it is going to ignore a treaty just signed.

 

[KM-Tiger]

The context of this is a specific threat by the EU to interfere with GB/NI trade in the event of no deal.

The threat isn't imagined, see David Frost's Twitter feed today. So I think HMG are right to take steps to nullify that threat.

 

[Mr D]

I was wondering if you were thinking of examples where a country agrees a treaty and then tries to repudiate it within less than a year.

Whereas I would agree you about the details you propose those are not situations where a country is opening stating that it is going to ignore a treaty just signed.

Does it matter when?

Either we break the law or we don't. Pretty sure the timescale does not make any difference to the breaking when its criminal law or civil law. Does it for international?

 

[John Hemming]

Does it matter when?

Either we break the law or we don't. Pretty sure the timescale does not make any difference to the breaking when its criminal law or civil law. Does it for international?

There are statutes of limitation for civil and criminal where after a period of time it cannot be prosecuted.

However, when it comes to the proposals to repudiate a treaty I am wondering if there are examples of something similar.

The argument that a bill has to be passed now to deal with theoretical problems with the WA is obviously false as parliament can pass a bill in a day if there is a real problem.

 

[The Byre]

The situation is as follows -

1. If there is a border down the Irish Sea between NI and Rest-UK, then the government faces all kinds of litigation from a whole variety of bodies, ranging from the NI administration to the Haulage Association and many more. This is litigation that it is almost certain to lose and for the same reasons a border between Scunthorpe and Doncaster or the Isle of Wight and the mainland would be found to be against the Britsih constitution (albeit unwritten) and several principles of common law and public rights law in particular, all of which is extremely well established with a veritable welter of case law.

2. There can be no hard border between NI and the RoI. It is a physical impossibility.

3. If you want the 'Troubles' to kick-off again, try to impose such a boarder. There are factions within the Real IRA and the UDF, UDA, etc. that are just drooling at the prospect of such a thing! These people are not idealists, but criminals who use civil unrest and terrorism as a cover for common criminality and profiteering, utilising young hotheads as cannon-fodder.

4. The UK government has now signed two agreements that state that it would not do such a thing. They are the Withdrawal Agreement and the NI Peace Agreement. It would be breaking not one, but two international treatises that others signed in good faith.

5. The UK government would not have to even try to impose an Irish/Irish border, it merely would have to pass this law for the various criminal elements in both North and South to spit on their hands and get the party started!

You have been warned!

 

[Newchodge]

The context of this is a specific threat by the EU to interfere with GB/NI trade in the event of no deal.

The threat isn't imagined, see David Frost's Twitter feed today. So I think HMG are right to take steps to nullify that threat.

The threat was absolutely clear the day the Withdrawal agreement was proposed. So why sign it?

 

[Mr D]

The situation is as follows -

1. If there is a border down the Irish Sea between NI and Rest-UK, then the government faces all kinds of litigation from a whole variety of bodies, ranging from the NI administration to the Haulage Association and many more. This is litigation that it is almost certain to lose and for the same reasons a border between Scunthorpe and Doncaster or the Isle of Wight and the mainland would be found to be against the Britsih constitution (albeit unwritten) and several principles of common law and public rights law in particular, all of which is extremely well established with a veritable welter of case law.

2. There can be no hard border between NI and the RoI. It is a physical impossibility.

3. If you want the 'Troubles' to kick-off again, try to impose such a boarder. There are factions within the Real IRA and the UDF, UDA, etc. that are just drooling at the prospect of such a thing! These people are not idealists, but criminals who use civil unrest and terrorism as a cover for common criminality and profiteering, utilising young hotheads as cannon-fodder.

4. The UK government has now signed two agreements that state that it would not do such a thing. They are the Withdrawal Agreement and the NI Peace Agreement. It would be breaking not one, but two international treatises that others signed in good faith.

5. The UK government would not have to even try to impose an Irish/Irish border, it merely would have to pass this law for the various criminal elements in both North and South to spit on their hands and get the party started!

You have been warned!

2. Its not a physical impossibility. Just very expensive to build.
Physical borders that are barriers are really nothing new. Fencing, sensors, border crossings, patrols, cameras - its a lot of hardware to build and fit but nothing difficult in itself. Could set a basic border up in around 90 days though a secure border would take years.

Its not wanted by the northern locals. Its not apparently wanted by the southern locals either but they are part of something that may want a border between them and us. So may be imposed on the Southerners.

 

[Clinton]

The context of this is a specific threat by the EU to interfere with GB/NI trade in the event of no deal.

The threat isn't imagined, see David Frost's Twitter feed today. So I think HMG are right to take steps to nullify that threat.

If we had Appeaser May in charge she would have just rolled over. Thank goodness she's gone and we've got a man of action*.

*Man of action? That should get a few Guardianistas foaming at the mouth.

 

[paulears]

Was there not a problem where both side agreed on what they thought the agreement meant, rather than something totally watertight. Now the explanations are in on what they thought they agreed to they don't agree. If this is correct, then both parties to the agreement made a bit of a mess of the legal side, didn't they?

 

[John Hemming]

If we had Appeaser May in charge she would have just rolled over. Thank goodness she's gone and we've got a man of action*.

Actually it is Johnson who rolled over and then wondered if he had been right. May did not roll over on this.

 

[Clinton]

It's not correct. Both sides knew to what they agreed. But the EU are now trying to play silly bugg*rs and interpret the rules in a way that means not a border between NI and the mainland, but making it illegal for NI to import food from the UK (under certain circumstances). That's why we need the protection of this new bill.

Guardianistas should take the trouble to go read the full story instead of relying on the usual drivel in the loony left press. Maybe start here.

Actually it is Johnson who rolled over and then wondered if he had been right. May did not roll over on this.

The rolling over was in the context of accepting whatever crap the EU is now giving us in the negotiations instead of showing that the UK can stand up for itself (as Johnson is doing via this new bill). But, hey, you knew the context. May was too cautious about appearing confrontational. The EU took full advantage. Johnson, it turns out, isn't the shy and retiring type. And the EU don't like that.

 

[MBE2017]

I agree it is a mess, the Gov should never had agreed the WA in the first place, they should never had placed any part of the UK under EU control, better to have no deal.

The EU has a huge problem now, they realise the UK Gov is prepared to do this, more importantly the public will back them doing this, and the legal arguments can go on for however long they want, but they both want a deal now.

If Barnier had not tried to use the Irish border to stretch out the negotiations, to frustrate them and inevitably not actually negotiate in good faith, this could have been avoided. The whole EU position has been unacceptable on many points, we can have our fishing waters back but they will decide about the fish etc, all designed to lead to a delay. Since they have not negotiated in good faith you could argue the WA is null and void.

https://twitter.com/marylou4559/status/1305096991404326912?s=21

 

[John Hemming]

Barnier did not decide what the negotiating strategy of the EU was. This was a decision taken by the EU constitutional structures. I have not checked, but it was probably signed off by the council of ministers (the leading politicians in the EU countries).

The issue of the Irish border is not just important politically in Europe, but also in America. It is one of the contradictions of Brexit.

 

[The Byre]

I agree it is a mess, the Gov should never had agreed the WA in the first place, they should never had placed any part of the UK under EU control, better to have no deal.

From an EU perspective - THIS!

The British electorate voted (wrongly IMO, but that is a different matter entirely) to leave - so f**king leave! Why is UK-PLC still dancing around the Brexit maypole?

I do not understand the EU in this, why negotiate? Why bother? They don't want to give up fishing - OK, keep all the little fishies and compensate the fishermen. I would not have entered into a transition period or opened a debate with what has turned into a ship-of-fools.

You voted for fools, you got fools, now off you go on fools' errand.

 

[Digital-Marketeer]

I am a little surprised that no one else has started a thread about this so here goes.


The Withdrawl "Agreement" was hastily drawn up by two parties who both wanted to avoid a cliff edge no deal. It was far from perfect and depended on "goodwill". Breaking parts of such agreements is going to be part of the negotiating process, the EU crying foul on this issue, as if some criminal act has been committed is ingenious to say the least, but the EU have few cards to play that don't hurt them more. Let's say most of the objectors are of a remainer persuasion.

When it comes to breaking agreements, let's look at the role of Dublin in the GFA. Whilst nationalists elements would gleefully point out that this agreement has provision for a simple first past the post referendum on uniting Ireland, it also had provision for confidence building and all Ireland bodies to draw the loyalist community into a greater Irish identity. In this role Dublin, pandering to nationalist sentiments, has failed miserably.
Bertie Aherne met Ian Paisley on the site of the Boyne (in the republic) and exchanged gifts. Could you imagine Leo doing this? The Irish flag has an orange stripe to recognise the Orange community, but it might as well be all green. Originally some in the republican movement wanted to entice the protestant community into an independent Ireland, hence the flag.

In the original independence process, Ulster's borders were not defined, Fermanagh and Derry were ceded in lieu of the republic's inability to accept it's share of the national debt, mostly through the devastating civil war that followed independence, and far more damaging than that actual struggle. Even with a majority vote for unification, the troubles only just begin. Tour Antrim and Down and you will see nothing but Ulster red hand flags, union flags and ominously the odd UVF flag. This is a strong community that will not accept unification by force or stealth. The present attempted application of the withdrawl agreement is stealth, hence Boris had to act.

To many outsiders, the issue is presented as "Brits out", if only it were so, the UK would ditch it tomorrow. The fact is that the so called "Brits" are Irishmen of their own identity and long heritage in Ireland and Dublin has failed miserably in reaching out to them.

The culprit here is Dublin, however it works out a big loser in Brexit. They can salvage much by working on their special relationship with the UK, instead they chose to play their EU card for what it's worth. Irish politics is quite corrupt by UK standards, just one aspect being their questionable tax arrangements with multi nationals setting up their EU domicile in Ireland, even the EU questions an alleged $10 billion in tax Google alone didn't pay. After brexit the UK element of these profits will be subject to UK tax, a gravy train they are going to notice coming off the rails.

 

[Mr D]

From an EU perspective - THIS!

The British electorate voted (wrongly IMO, but that is a different matter entirely) to leave - so f**king leave! Why is UK-PLC still dancing around the Brexit maypole?

I do not understand the EU in this, why negotiate? Why bother? They don't want to give up fishing - OK, keep all the little fishies and compensate the fishermen. I would not have entered into a transition period or opened a debate with what has turned into a ship-of-fools.

You voted for fools, you got fools, now off you go on fools' errand.

We are leaving. Unless some git again asks for an extension.
Quite why we had any extensions at all is beyond me.

 

[Digital-Marketeer]

Barnier did not decide what the negotiating strategy of the EU was. This was a decision taken by the EU constitutional structures. I have not checked, but it was probably signed off by the council of ministers (the leading politicians in the EU countries).

The issue of the Irish border is not just important politically in Europe, but also in America. It is one of the contradictions of Brexit.

Why is the border important in the USA? Let's face it American involvement is heavily skewed to the nationalist community based on a nostalgic history of oppressed Irish peasants. It barely recognises the Orange community, such as when Ted Kennedy, stopped by a UDR trooper at a checkpoint in Belfast, asked him why didn't he go home. The trooper replied that he "lived round the corner, why didn't the gentleman go home?"
The USA is part of the problem, not it's solution. Nancy Pelosi has more trouble with her hair than to delve into this.

 

[Newchodge]

Thanks for the history lesson.

Can't see any response to England (because it is England, not the UK) planning to break the law.

When the withdrawal agreement was being negotiated there was huge concern that it would mean a border down the Irish Sea. Boris at the time insisted that it would not, presumably because he always intended to break this treaty and go back on his word. Amazing, really, when he is always so naturally honest in everything he says and does.

 

[MBE2017]

The deal should have been an easy one, considering we are totally aligned at present. Maybe it is because I live in the UK, but most of the obstacles from a negotiating point of view have been thrown up by the EU, which was not helped by the UK under May being very uncertain what it wanted.

Anyway, the beginning is coming to an end shortly, but as usual these negotiations have not been held in good faith, and certainly not by friends. At the start I forecast we were in a war, a trade war against the EU, who are desperate for the UK to fail, otherwise other countries will follow.

It won’t work in the long run, and I expect the EU to suffer big internal problems over the next twenty years, leading to its demise.

 

[Digital-Marketeer]

We are leaving. Unless some git again asks for an extension.
Quite why we had any extensions at all is beyond me.

The EU can't give up on fish and compensate it's fishermen. Brexit is an existential threat to the EU, hence they have to dispute every aspect. Several electorates would lean to leave referenda if brexit even happens. Let's face it the UK is not only leaving, but leaving the exit door wide open.

 

[Newchodge]

The deal should have been an easy one, considering we are totally aligned at present.

And if we had wanted to stay totally aligned there would have been no issues. The reality is that we want to stay aligned when it benefits us to do so and remove alignment when it benefits us to do so. Cake and eat it scenario which was never going to be acceptable to the EU.

 

[Mr D]

And if we had wanted to stay totally aligned there would have been no issues. The reality is that we want to stay aligned when it benefits us to do so and remove alignment when it benefits us to do so. Cake and eat it scenario which was never going to be acceptable to the EU.

I am guessing that all the trade agreements the EU has done with other countries do not require alignment on everything?
As in those countries will align when it benefits them to do so (as part of trade) and not align when it benefits them to not align.

Are we that different to say Japan? EU signed a trade deal with them not so long back.

 

[Digital-Marketeer]

It is the UK government.

Thanks for the history lesson.

Can't see any response to England (because it is England, not the UK) planning to break the law.

When the withdrawal agreement was being negotiated there was huge concern that it would mean a border down the Irish Sea. Boris at the time insisted that it would not, presumably because he always intended to break this treaty and go back on his word. Amazing, really, when he is always so naturally honest in everything he says and does.

It is the UK government acting, not England. As a lawyer, the law is no doubt literal to you, but politics is the Art of the Possible (otherwise we would all just be buried in litigation) and the Commons is a law making body. The relevant law in the UK will be whatever that democratically elected body passes.
After WW1, President Wilson of the USA made all sorts of rash pledges concerning Armistice Talks. These were all completely thrown out by Congress, as was their prerogative. Ditto the current situation. It will not be a case of Boris breaking any law, but parliament exercising it's sovereign rights, and so the negotiating process will rumble on.
As a politician Boris doesn't have to be honest, moral or straight. He does however have to be cunning, persuasive and credible. Slight contradiction with the last term, but it's a perceptive matter.

 

[Mr D]

The EU can't give up on fish and compensate it's fishermen. Brexit is an existential threat to the EU, hence they have to dispute every aspect. Several electorates would lean to leave referenda if brexit even happens. Let's face it the UK is not only leaving, but leaving the exit door wide open.

True. However we have moved on from the 2016 vote. We are leaving - and leaving, and leaving.....

Hope we leave soon. These extensions lose sales.
As it is a chunk of my Valentines day sales are going to be impacted by the current leaving date.

 

[Mr D]

As a politician Boris doesn't have to be honest, moral or straight. He does however have to be cunning, persuasive and credible. Slight contradiction with the last term, but it's a perceptive matter.

And politics is about perception.

Cyndy has a perception of the current actions by the government. That may be the same or different to the perception of The Byre or MBE2017.
Ultimately none of us is going to vote on the matter but its possible we could influence someone who is more involved.

 

[Newchodge]

It is the UK government.

It is the UK government acting, not England. As a lawyer, the law is no doubt literal to you, but politics is the Art of the Possible (otherwise we would all just be buried in litigation) and the Commons is a law making body. The relevant law in the UK will be whatever that democratically elected body passes.
After WW1, President Wilson of the USA made all sorts of rash pledges concerning Armistice Talks. These were all completely thrown out by Congress, as was their prerogative. Ditto the current situation. It will not be a case of Boris breaking any law, but parliament exercising it's sovereign rights, and so the negotiating process will rumble on.
As a politician Boris doesn't have to be honest, moral or straight. He does however have to be cunning, persuasive and credible. Slight contradiction with the last term, but it's a perceptive matter.

So why did the N Ireland minister state that the proposed bill would be a breach of international law? Why did the Justice minister state that he would resign if the law was broken in an unacceptable way? There is a huge difference between pledges and an international treaty.

 

[Digital-Marketeer]

And if we had wanted to stay totally aligned there would have been no issues. The reality is that we want to stay aligned when it benefits us to do so and remove alignment when it benefits us to do so. Cake and eat it scenario which was never going to be acceptable to the EU.

Lots of things aren't acceptable to the EU, all the others they sweep under the carpet. Fences on the Hungarian border, not taking refugees in the East (despite all the empty bedrooms), illicit subsidaries, they don't like the Polish constitution now, dubious tax deals, not having books audited, it goes on. If alignment means not having vacuum cleaners exceeding 50W, then yes there are problems. If you have ever worked with Germans, they love rules, even silly ones. I trade with the USA, our biggest single trading partner. It goes smoothly bar the odd hiccup (Lacey Act last year, but we work round it), so you don't need all these rules, so what are the benefits? It's not cake and eat it, it's simply not paying for their excesses.

 

[John Hemming]

To me the good news in all of this is that it is coming to a head. Something will happen. It most likely won't be a particularly nice something, but it will happen. After that people can get on with picking up the pieces, but people will not invest in the middle of this politically inspired chaos.

We may even know what is happening in some detail by the end of October.

 

[Paul Norman]

From an EU perspective - THIS!

The British electorate voted (wrongly IMO, but that is a different matter entirely) to leave - so f**king leave! Why is UK-PLC still dancing around the Brexit maypole?

I do not understand the EU in this, why negotiate? Why bother? They don't want to give up fishing - OK, keep all the little fishies and compensate the fishermen. I would not have entered into a transition period or opened a debate with what has turned into a ship-of-fools.

You voted for fools, you got fools, now off you go on fools' errand.

This. Again, from the EU perspective. If my wife said she wanted to leave, and 3 years later was still standing there trying to keep some access to my stuff, I would be a little impatient.

The UK decided to leave. Legally, you have done so. Why are we even having these negotiations?

 

[Paul Norman]

Separately, and back to the original OP, the Justice Secretary has made a bit of an error here.

I get that all the other politicians would be of the view that breaking international laws, or even domestic laws, was a matter of personal choice, but this person's role is to state the legal reality.

It is interesting to note that they believe breaking laws that I find inconvenient is justifiable, though.

 

[The Byre]

If my wife said she wanted to leave, and 3 years later was still standing there trying to keep some access to my stuff, I would be a little impatient.

 

[thetiger2015]

This. Again, from the EU perspective. If my wife said she wanted to leave, and 3 years later was still standing there trying to keep some access to my stuff, I would be a little impatient.

The UK decided to leave. Legally, you have done so. Why are we even having these negotiations?

Because we are so intrinsically linked with the EU and the way it trades as a bloc. By extracting the UK, one of the largest economies, it causes problems for both the EU and the UK.

If your wife said she wanted to leave and she owned a percentage of your property and you owed her some money, you wouldn't just leave, you'd take it all to court/solicitors and negotiate. Either in an amicable way or by beating each other up with documents. There are agreements, contracts, trading issues to be dealt with.

The UK has been pushing for a no deal because it allows them to bonfire lots of stuff and re-write things to suit but the EU can't have that, because you can't have the UK getting full access rights and then doing other deals with the other countries on top. The EU protects itself, as you'd expect it to do. The UK is changing paths and wanting to do deals that may impact the EU and its members.

This will be an interesting test. Can the UK get what it wants from the EU whilst also doing lots of other deals. At the moment, it doesn't look like it. The EU are holding firm on their interpretation - in which case - who on earth signed off on something that was open to interpretation in the first place?

 

[thetiger2015]

Separately, and back to the original OP, the Justice Secretary has made a bit of an error here.

I get that all the other politicians would be of the view that breaking international laws, or even domestic laws, was a matter of personal choice, but this person's role is to state the legal reality.

It is interesting to note that they believe breaking laws that I find inconvenient is justifiable, though.

..or they've been told to say that.

It could be justifiable. If it were to save lives or avert some sort of food shortage etc.

More worrying. If the UK chooses to break this particular agreement, what's to stop the EU breaking future agreements on a whim. If they're so 'spiteful' and 'horrid', they could attempt to inflict punishment upon the UK. People are saying they've acted in 'bad faith' - nothing stopping them continuing to do so then. Hampering North Sea fishing perhaps? Blocking Calais? Restricting access to for travel?

 

[KM-Tiger]

The UK has been pushing for a no deal

No it hasn't. We have been pushing for an FTA, like the EU has with other sovereign states.

The stumbling block is the EU refusing a trade deal unless we capitulate and let them regulate state aid, and continue to plunder our fish. Quite rightly HMG is giving a foxtrot oscar to those.

 

[John Hemming]

The stumbling block is the EU refusing a trade deal unless we capitulate and let them regulate state aid, and continue to plunder our fish. Quite rightly HMG is giving a foxtrot oscar to those.

The deal we have with Japan regulates state aid to some extent.