Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Who recognises Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland as countries? It would be a bit like the recognition of Catalonia, where only Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognise them, and do so purely in the hope of getting recognition for their own unrecognized countries.

It's different to to say the USA or Germany or even Spain as above, which are Federal States with constitutionally demarcated powers for the Federal Government and for the States. The devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales exist solely by act of parliament. The NI assembly also exists by reason of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, albeit that same was brought about by reason of the international Good Friday Agreement.

Also equivocating means being ambiguous or vacillating between two positions. Did you mean my analogy?

The UK does.....

The UK is a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Crown dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) are largely self-governing with the UK responsible for their defence and international relations and are not part of the United Kingdom.

https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the point. They have the power to amend legislation. That is part of the rule of law. The rule of law requires a system for the passing of laws, and that system is the Westminster parliament to pass legislation.

An example of the breach of the rule of law would be if, for example, the government was directing the police to arrest people on suspicion of crimes that are not legislated against. Or if, in the case of a constitutional democracy, the parliament passed laws that exceeded the constitutional provisions or civil rights of the people and maintained that it was the law notwithstanding Court pronouncements to the contrary.

That is not what the UK are doing. They are promoting and potentially passing laws in accordance with their own parliamentary system. If there comes a time when two separate pieces of legislation come into conflict, that is when the Courts can clarify the position. But equally, as you say, they can amend whichever piece of legislation they do not wish to continue with.

I am not justifying the Internal Markets Bill. I think it is causing damage to the UK's reputation. But saying that it is a breach of the rule of law is misidentifying the problem it causes and leads to illogical conclusions.

Well it appears the overall majority of the Legal eagles in the UK disagree with you, you can look up the details of same but im assuming you have done that?

PeadarCo

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Should really have bookmarked his classic article about ourselves, Holland and Denmark joining Britain in leaving:

https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

First time reading it. Reads like a parody of Brexiters until you realise at the bottom its written by an actual and reasonably high profile Brexiter. Is it any wonder why negotiations have gone so badly. When you have high profile Brexiters being clueless on how transnational single markets and customs unions actually work and the trade offs involved.

You still have Boris going on about an Australian style deal when the UK is having trouble satisfying the requirements for having basic 3rd party relations with the EU.

Sam Russell

PeadarCo wrote: »

First time reading it. Reads like a parody of Brexiters until you realise at the bottom its written by an actual and reasonably high profile Brexiter. Is it any wonder why negotiations have gone so badly. When you have high profile Brexiters being clueless on how transnational single markets and customs unions actually work and the trade offs involved.

You still have Boris going on about an Australian style deal when the UK is having trouble satisfying the requirements for having basic 3rd party relations with the EU.

Have they even applied for 'third country' status? or are they looking for a North Korea type deal?

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

The UK does.....

https://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom

Kinda undermines your point about them being "internationally recognised countries", particularly in the context in which you said it i.e. that it was a different situation to local authorities. They are subordinate legislative bodies, whose existence is derived from the legislation of the State (i.e. the UK)'s parliament. Just like a local authority is.

listermint wrote: »

Well it appears the overall majority of the Legal eagles in the UK disagree with you, you can look up the details of same but im assuming you have done that?

I'm aware of a lot of politicians making that claim, and a lot of lawyers talking around it. But fundamentally describing the lawful passing of a law through parliament which breaches international law as a breach of the rule of law says a lot about the public mood in Britain at the moment. They are obsessed about how they see themselves, and not about how the world sees them.

Compared with what the EU says about them:

The commission has decided to send a letter of formal notice to the U.K. government,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced in Brussels on Thursday. “This draft bill is by its very nature a breach of the obligation of good faith laid down in the Withdrawal Agreement.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-01/eu-to-start-legal-action-against-u-k-on-internal-market-today

Specific, clear and understandable. No exaggeration. They entered an agreement and are breaching it. Nothing more nothing less. Getting into a flap about the UK declining into fascism, or that they are in breach of the rule of law is nonsense.

The consequences of what happens between Westminster and the devolved parliament, if they come into conflict, will be resolved in the UK courts, in a manner very reminiscient of a country that....observes the rule of law. Now, if the Courts ruled in favour of say the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster government ploughed on regardless, then we can talk!

RobMc59

If Scotland and Wales(Northern Ireland is a province)are`nt countries in their own right does that mean Ireland was`nt a country before independence?

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Scotland and Wales(Northern Ireland is a province)are`nt countries in their own right does that mean Ireland was`nt a country before independence?

Before independence Ireland was effectivly a colony.

moon2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They entered an agreement and are breaching it. Nothing more nothing less... <Snip> ... or that they are in breach of the rule of law is nonsense.

You're exactly right, though you are also arguing semantics. By your definition the UK can never break international law, they can just be in breach of agreements. If the UK are in breach of the withdrawal agreement they can be penalized. If they refuse the penalty they are, once again, merely in breach of international obligations again.

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Kinda undermines your point about them being "internationally recognised countries", particularly in the context in which you said it i.e. that it was a different situation to local authorities. They are subordinate legislative bodies, whose existence is derived from the legislation of the State (i.e. the UK)'s parliament. Just like a local authority is.



I'm aware of a lot of politicians making that claim, and a lot of lawyers talking around it. But fundamentally describing the lawful passing of a law through parliament which breaches international law as a breach of the rule of law says a lot about the public mood in Britain at the moment. They are obsessed about how they see themselves, and not about how the world sees them.

Compared with what the EU says about them:



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-01/eu-to-start-legal-action-against-u-k-on-internal-market-today

Specific, clear and understandable. No exaggeration. They entered an agreement and are breaching it. Nothing more nothing less. Getting into a flap about the UK declining into fascism, or that they are in breach of the rule of law is nonsense.

The consequences of what happens between Westminster and the devolved parliament, if they come into conflict, will be resolved in the UK courts, in a manner very reminiscient of a country that....observes the rule of law. Now, if the Courts ruled in favour of say the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster government ploughed on regardless, then we can talk!

A flap?

No sorry but your wrong. Youve been given ample evidence of the continued decline into fascism with the centralising and solidifying power to the single party.

Im not sure if you are just being contrary for the sake of it but alas their are those that do that.

They are definitely not the UK of ten years ago. Let's see how next year goes and we can read back your post again. Then we can all be in this so called flap . Sure it's all much ado about nothing right..

johnnyskeleton

moon2 wrote: »

You're exactly right, though you are also arguing semantics. By your definition the UK can never break international law, they can just be in breach of agreements. If the UK are in breach of the withdrawal agreement they can be penalized. If they refuse the penalty they are, once again, merely in breach of international obligations again.

No, by all means say theyre in breach of international law. It is the argument that this is the slippery slope to fascism that I take issue with

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

No sorry but your wrong. Youve been given ample evidence of the continued decline into fascism with the centralising and solidifying power to the single party.

Im sure Labour, Lib Dems, Greem, Pllyd, SNP, UKIP/Brexit, the NI parties and all the small partoes would take issue with that.

If Labour had won an 80 seat majority and Corbyn was pressing ahead with his policy promises, would you say that he is centralising and solidifying power to the single party?

My main objection to the suggestion that they are en route to fascism is that it masks the badness of what they are actually doing. Pointing out that the UK is breaching their agreement is pretty bad. Saying they acting like fascists will make peoples eyes glaze over, because people know that in reality they are nothing like fascists.

Then if actual fascists come along, people will be so used to the word being applied to duff auld conservatives, that they will not fear the actual fascists.

In short, you normalise it by false comparison, while also distracting from the real problem. If youre ok with that, by all means keep calling them fascists. Call Boris Hitler too, if you like!

Im not sure if you are just being contrary for the sake of it but alas their are those that do that.

If contrary means disagreeing with the desire to overstate how bad the UK is, then yes I suppose I am. I prefer to think of it as being accurate in the face of hyperbole.

They are definitely not the UK of ten years ago. Let's see how next year goes and we can read back your post again. Then we can all be in this so called flap . Sure it's all much ado about nothing right..

Ireland isnt the Ireland of 10 years ago either. But yeah, Im willing to bet that on the 5th October 2021 the UK will not be a single party totalitarian fascist state.

And again, though you just arent listening to me, I am not saying theres nothing wrong with what the UK Government is doing. That is abundantly clear and I dont really see the need to keep repeating it. The opposite of not wanting to exaggerate a problem isnt to deny that there is a problem.

johnnyskeleton

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Scotland and Wales(Northern Ireland is a province)are`nt countries in their own right does that mean Ireland was`nt a country before independence?

No one is saying theyre not countries. But listermints suggestion that their parliaments have more weight than a local authority based on the suggestion that the UK recognises them as countries holds no water

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Im sure Labour, Lib Dems, Greem, Pllyd, SNP, UKIP/Brexit, the NI partoes and all the small partoes would take issue with that.

If Labour had won an 80 seat majority and Corbyn was pressing ahead with his policy promises, would you day that he is centralising and solidifying power to the single party?

My main objection to the suggestion that they are en route to fascism is that it masks the badness of what they are actually doing. Pointing out that the UK is breaching their agreement is pretty bad. Saying they acting like fascists will make peoples eyes glaze over, because people know that in reality they are nothing like fascists.

Then if actual fascists come along, people will be so used to the word being applied to duff auld conservatives, that they will not fear the actual fascists.

In short, you normalise it by false comparison, while also distracting from the real problem. If youre ok with that, by all means keep calling them fascists. Call Boris Hitler too, if you like!



If contrary means disagreeing with the desire to overstate how bad the UK is, then yes I suppose I am. I prefer to think of it as being accurate in the face of hyperbole.



Ireland isnt the Ireland of 10 years ago either. But yeah, Im willing to bet that on the 5th October 2021 the UK will not be a single party totalitarian fascist state.

And again, though you just arent listening to me, I am not saying theres nothing wrong with what the UK Government is doing. That is abundantly clear and I dont really see the need to keep repeating it. The opposite of not wanting to exaggerate a problem isnt to deny that there is a problem.

Glaze over ? They've literally cleansed the entire party of non believers. Have you not been keeping up with events of the last year. What was the conservative party now blatantly pushes ultra right wing views. Views that were once the sole enterprise of the Brexit party and ukip before it. Two parties that got no tangible following or votes.


You playing down the events of the last 3 years is frankly laughable.

You don't cleanse your own party of non believers , eject top ranking long term civil servants across the board , take over the supposedly independent broadcasting corporation, and literally attack the judiciary in the press and on television and call it normal.


Amusing though I needed a good giggle.

listermint

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No one is saying theyre not countries. But listermints suggestion that their parliaments have more weight than a local authority based on the suggestion that the UK recognises them as countries holds no water

Your wrong again, the good Friday agreement which was an agreement signed internationally puts paid to your woeful local authority argument.

Five Eighth

The most obvious one that comes to my mind is that they are introducing the Internal Markets Bill and admitted, perhaps unwisely, that it breached international law. However, a breach of international law, while very serious diplomatically does not in itself undermine the rule of law....The fact that there is a conflict between domestic legislation and an international agreement does not mean that a country does not respect the rule of law. It means that a country is perhaps untrustworthy to sign other international treaties (which, in a sense, could be worse for them), but it doesn't mean that they are attacking the rule of law. - johnny skeleton.

Somewhat confused here - maybe johnny skeleton might help - how is breaching the terms of a legally binding international Treaty which has been ratified by the Parliament of the offending Government not breaking the rule of law - be it international law or otherwise?

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

Glaze over ? They've literally cleansed the entire party of non believers. Have you not been keeping up with events of the last year. What was the conservative party now blatantly pushes ultra right wing views. Views that were once the sole enterprise of the Brexit party and ukip before it. Two parties that got no tangible following or votes.

They imposed a whip line on those who didn't vote with the party, which parties are entitled to do. 21 MPs lost the conservative whip. 10 regained it a month later. 6 decided not to stand in the next election (some e.g. Ken Clarke were going to retire anyway). 5 went on to contest the next election as independents ala Dominic Grieve or in ChangeUK ala Anna Soubry. All 5 lost their seats.

What is missing from your analysis is that, whatever your personal opinion on Brexit, it's popular amongst the voting British public and, while some opinion polls show it being less popular now, at the time of the election, i.e. when it counted, people voted for the Brexit Tories over the non-Brexit ones and the equivocal Labour party.

These are all perfectly normal things for a party to do. You might recall that in Ireland TDs lose the whip for not voting with the government. This can often happen on matters that they claim are of conscience, or more cynically where they think there are votes in it e.g. abortion.

I suppose the real question you should ask yourself about your analysis that this shows that they are fascists is whether, had they lost the election, would you still hold the same view? Or would you say that they made a tactical blunder by going too strong on the Brexit view?

All this just demonstrates how the electoral process works in the UK, not that there is some kind of fascist element at play.

The other thing as discussed at length here is that the Tory party is not implementing ultra right wing policies. In fact, some of their policies seem to be straight out of the Momentum playbook - make companies pay for regulation, no state aid rules etc.

You don't cleanse your own party of non believers , eject top ranking long term civil servants across the board , take over the supposedly independent broadcasting corporation, and literally attack the judiciary in the press and on television and call it normal.

See above re: "cleanse" the party. Civil servants are dismissed all the time. I'm not sure what you mean by taking over the supposedly independent broadcasting corporation, but if you're referring to Tim Davie taking over from Tony Hall as Director General of the BBC, that decision is made by the Board of the BBC. As for attacking the judiciary in the press and on television, what exactly are you referring to? Irish politicians have criticised Judges most recently Brid Smith.

Are we fascists now too?

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

Your wrong again, the good Friday agreement which was an agreement signed internationally puts paid to your woeful local authority argument.

Thank you for repeating what I had said earlier:

The NI assembly also exists by reason of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, albeit that same was brought about by reason of the international Good Friday Agreement.

Capt'n Midnight

The view from Germany. Who run the EU as everyone knows

Opinion: Is the UK turning into a rogue state?

More insidious is the "Overseas Operations Bill," which effectively decriminalizes torture by British soldiers if they aren't prosecuted within five years.
...
This new isolation and lawlessness, combined with its political strength, makes the government more unpredictable than ever.

The UK's political capital and reputation is being spaffed up the wall.

johnnyskeleton

Five Eighth wrote: »

The most obvious one that comes to my mind is that they are introducing the Internal Markets Bill and admitted, perhaps unwisely, that it breached international law. However, a breach of international law, while very serious diplomatically does not in itself undermine the rule of law....The fact that there is a conflict between domestic legislation and an international agreement does not mean that a country does not respect the rule of law. It means that a country is perhaps untrustworthy to sign other international treaties (which, in a sense, could be worse for them), but it doesn't mean that they are attacking the rule of law. - johnny skeleton.

Somewhat confused here - maybe johnny skeleton might help - how is breaching the terms of a legally binding international Treaty which has been ratified by the Parliament of the offending Government not breaking the rule of law - be it international law or otherwise?

Breaching the rule of law should not be confused with breaking a rule or law.

This is a reasonable definition of the rule of law:

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671199.001.0001/acprof-9780199671199-chapter-2#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20law%20is%20an%20essentially%20contested%20concept.&text=In%20all%20definitions%2C%20the%20rule,on%20the%20basis%20of%20law.

The rule of law is an essentially contested concept. It is defined in many different manners and debate is also necessary to keep it thriving. The differences concern the question which elements are included into the concept. In all definitions, the rule of law is concerned with the control of public power through law with the aim of protecting the individual. Legality is the core element of the rule of law. First, legality requires government to act on the basis of law. Second, it sets a number of quality requirements to which law must adhere, such as generality and clarity. Legality also requires that the judiciary reviews the legality of governmental acts and provides individuals with access to a fair hearing. In addition, a functional separation of the three powers of government is an inherent element of the rule of law, because it ensures that no one will be a judge in his own cause and that laws are not made with particular cases in mind. The independence of the judiciary is indispensable to the rule of law, seen how it upholds respect for the law. The elements mentioned are formal elements of the rule of law which protect individuals to a certain extent against arbitrary exercise of governmental power. The requirements of legality promote individual autonomy because they allow people to plan their lives. These formal elements of the rule of law are necessary, but not sufficient, to set limits to the substantive contents of law. More inclusive rule of law definitions incorporate human rights protection. Human rights can set substantive limitations on the content of law. Human rights are aimed at protecting the individual from arbitrary power. Besides, procedural rights codify rule of law principles and, as such, are part of the rule of law. Democracy, too, is sometimes understood as an element of the rule of law. Legality then demands law to have a democratic heritage. Conceptually, the rule of law and democracy can be distinguished. In practice, both concepts are inseparable because they are both aimed at protecting the equality and autonomy of individuals. Within European states, it makes sense to see the rule of law in connection with democracy and human rights, because all three concepts are part of the same political tradition of these states. The German Rechtsstaat, the French État de droit, and the UK rule of law concepts must be understood in a comprehensive sense to require laws to have a democratic heritage and remain within the limits of the constitution. At the same time, the balance that is achieved between democracy and the protection of fundamental rights in these states differs.

There is some argument that a breach of international law undermines the rule of law such as Lord Bingham, who stated that:

the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law

But that is overstating the issue. The UK are proposing to breach their obligations that they willingly signed up to. There is no need to overstate that - it is a serious enough diplomatic faux pas as it is. Moreover, the suggestion that this marks the end of the rule of law in the UK is hyperbole. The fact that the Internal Markets Bill, if it becomes an Act, is amenable to challenge through the Courts demonstrates that the UK still adheres to the rule of law.

fly_agaric

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The NI assembly also exists by reason of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, albeit that same was brought about by reason of the international Good Friday Agreement...

Thank you for repeating what I had said earlier:

Would I be right (or wrong?) in my thinking it puts NI on a different footing to the other UK regional assemblies?

If UK goes down the road of curtailing devolution + tries to strip the powers it enjoys (when it is not "suspended"!) are they breaking more international agreement(s)?

fash

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the point. They have the power to amend legislation. That is part of the rule of law. The rule of law requires a system for the passing of laws, and that system is the Westminster parliament to pass legislation.

An example of the breach of the rule of law would be if, for example, the government was directing the police to arrest people on suspicion of crimes that are not legislated against. Or if, in the case of a constitutional democracy, the parliament passed laws that exceeded the constitutional provisions or civil rights of the people and maintained that it was the law notwithstanding Court pronouncements to the contrary.

That is not what the UK are doing. They are promoting and potentially passing laws in accordance with their own parliamentary system. If there comes a time when two separate pieces of legislation come into conflict, that is when the Courts can clarify the position. But equally, as you say, they can amend whichever piece of legislation they do not wish to continue with.

I am not justifying the Internal Markets Bill. I think it is causing damage to the UK's reputation. But saying that it is a breach of the rule of law is misidentifying the problem it causes and leads to illogical conclusions.

What do you think about Orban in Hungary? How is what Johnson doing now sure in a similar situation to Orban?
Is a duly introduced Ermächtigungsgesetz granting unlimited power to the executive ok? Is any action carries or in the exercise of said power legally ok?

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

. . . But that is overstating the issue. The UK are proposing to breach their obligations that they willingly signed up to. There is no need to overstate that - it is a serious enough diplomatic faux pas as it is. Moreover, the suggestion that this marks the end of the rule of law in the UK is hyperbole. The fact that the Internal Markets Bill, if it becomes an Act, is amenable to challenge through the Courts demonstrates that the UK still adheres to the rule of law.

On the contrary - describing this as “is a serious enough diplomatic faux pas” is understating this issue. It’s not just a diplomatic faux pas; it’s a violation of law. It’s an illegal act.

Does it infringe the rule of law? Unquestionably it does. The “rule of law” is the idea that the acts of the government, as well as of the governed, are constrained by law; that the sovereign as well as the citizen is bound by, and must respect, the law. And here is the UK government acting in a way which, it openly (and correctly) acknowledges, is a violation of the law. You couldn’t ask for a clearer case of the rule of law being infringed.

It’s no answer to say that the Internal Market Act will be “amenable to challenge through the courts”, mainly because it’s not true. The Bill itself severely limits recourse to the courts (“No court or tribunal may entertain any proceedings for questioning the validity or lawfulness of regulations under section 44(1) or 45(1) other than proceedings on a relevant claim or application”) and, even where recourse to the courts is permitted, the courts are exp[licitly required to disregard violations of both domestic and international law (“regulations under section 44(1) or 45(1) are not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law”). They include this stuff in the Bill because they have to; the courts would otherwise strike down as illegal the things the Bill allows the government to do because, hey, they are illegal.
And this is why we have to say that the rule of law is being dismantled in the UK.

In a country with proper separation of powers and other effective democratic protections, whether legal or political, this would be shot down in flames. You should all, at some point today, take a moment to tell a Bunreacht near you how much you appreciate it. It may not be perfect, but it’s a lot better than this.

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

In a country with proper separation of powers and other effective democratic protections, whether legal or political, this would be shot down in flames. You should all, at some point today, take a moment to tell a Bunreacht near you how much you appreciate it. It may not be perfect, but it’s a lot better than this.

If you want to keep asserting that this is something different to what it is, thats on you. But its interesting that you mention Bunreacht na hEireann, article 29.6 of which reads:

No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas

Hence, in Ireland, international agreements are only part of our national law insofar as they are legislated for by the Oireachtas. Ireland has signed a number of international agreements but hasnt ratified them through our constitutional process:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ireland-yet-to-ratify-child-protection-treaty-12-years-after-signing-1.3803720

While not the same as agreeing something and then providing for the opposite six months later, youd hardly call Irelands breach of its international committments a breach in the rule of law.

On access to the courts, its misleading to suggest that curtailing challenges prevents courts from resolving conflicts of laws. As for them going down in flames, the Oireachtas occasionally curtails to right to challenge certain things and that passes constitutional muster e.g:

www.lawlibrary.ie › SecurePDF
SOME PRACTICAL ISSUES OF COURT APPLICATIONS REGARDING NAMA 1 ...

johnnyskeleton

fash wrote: »

What do you think about Orban in Hungary? How is what Johnson doing now sure in a similar situation to Orban?
Is a duly introduced Ermächtigungsgesetz granting unlimited power to the executive ok? Is any action carries or in the exercise of said power legally ok?

While I dont follow Hungary as closely, I do follow what the EU Parliament thinks about Hungary:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180906IPR12104/rule-of-law-in-hungary-parliament-calls-on-the-eu-to-act

If the EU Parliament felt the same about the UK, they would have refused to rarify the WA and would refuse to ratify the putative trade deal.

An Ciarraioch

Ourselves, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Holland have told Barnier not to give any ground on fishing in the upcoming talks - TBH, given that it's the UK's strongest card, it's hard to see how we get any deal in the sector that's better than Norway's, but hard to see it collapsing matters if everything else is agreed:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1006/1169871-fishing-rights-brexit/

Cona

Once the fisheries issue is dealt with, is it looking more likely now that a deal will be reached?

reslfj

Cona wrote: »

Once the fisheries issue is dealt with, is it looking more likely now that a deal will be reached?

No Level Playing Fields (LPF) is a total show stopper.


But why should the EU give in on fish. The UK has no other options than to accept - now or sometime in 2021.

Lars

Sam Russell

reslfj wrote: »

No Level Playing Fields (LPF) is a total show stopper.


But why should the EU give in on fish. The UK has no other options than to accept - now or sometime in 2021.

Lars

The IM bill is also a show stopper. If they cannot implement an international agreement made with the EU this year a few months ago and before it even comes into effect, how can the EU agree anything with them?

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you want to keep asserting that this is something different to what it is, thats on you. But its interesting that you mention Bunreacht na hEireann, article 29.6 of which reads:

No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas

Hence, in Ireland, international agreements are only part of our national law insofar as they are legislated for by the Oireachtas.

That's the same as in the UK.

But there's a huge difference between saying (a) that treaties are not part of domestic law, unless the legislature decides that they are, and (b) that treaties are not law, or are not legally binding. Treaties are law, they are legally binding, and a state violating treaties is offending agains the rule of law regardless of whether it has incorporated those treaties into its domestic law.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ireland has signed a number of international agreements but hasnt ratified them through our constitutional process:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ireland-yet-to-ratify-child-protection-treaty-12-years-after-signing-1.3803720

Separate issue. For a variety of reasons, treaty formation between states is a two-step process. Negotiators get together and hammer out an agreement, which the negotiating teams sign on behalf of their respective countries. The text of the treaty is now finalised. Each country involved then has to ratify the treaty in according with the requirements of its domestic law (e.g. US law requires that treaties be ratified by a vote in the Senate; Irish law requires certain treaties to be ratified by constitutional amendment; etc). The treaty doesn't enter into force until ratified. Sometimes there are things a country will need to do before it can ratify the treaty. For example, you can't ratify the European Convention on Human Rights unless you have already amended your domestic law (if necessary) to abolish the death penalty.

Signing but not ratifying a treaty is not a breach of law. Countries that have signed treaties are taken to have indicated an intention to ratify, and are expected to make good-faith efforts to proceed to ratification. But there's an understanding that this can take time, that it may be politically impossible (no US president can force the Senate to ratify a treaty) or that, occasionally, changed circumstances will justify a change of mind about adhering to the treaty. Signing but not ratifying may, or may not, depending on the circumstances carry a diplomatic or political cost, but it's not a violation of international law. Ratify the treaty but not observing it is, however.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

While not the same as agreeing something and then providing for the opposite six months later, youd hardly call Irelands breach of its international committments a breach in the rule of law.

That's because, as just pointed out, it isn'ta breach of law. In most, and possibly all, of those cases it isn't a breach of international commitments either.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On access to the courts, its misleading to suggest that curtailing challenges prevents courts from resolving conflicts of laws. As for them going down in flames, the Oireachtas occasionally curtails to right to challenge certain things and that passes constitutional muster e.g:

www.lawlibrary.ie › SecurePDF
SOME PRACTICAL ISSUES OF COURT APPLICATIONS REGARDING NAMA 1 ...

I quoted the exact language of the Internal Markets Bill which unambiguously says that the courts cannot strike down orders made under the Bill on the grounds that the conflict with relevant domestic or international law. It's not misleading to say that this prevents the courts from striking down orders made under the Bill on the grounds that the conflict with relevant domestic or international law; it's the plain truth. And, yes, absolutely this would be unconstitutional in Ireland; the Oireachtas can change the law (within the limits of what is constitutionally permissible) but it cannot tell the courts to ignore the law. The UK courts enjoy no such protection.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

The IM bill is also a show stopper. If they cannot implement an international agreement made with the EU this year a few months ago and before it even comes into effect, how can the EU agree anything with them?

But there's a clear way out here (if the UK government wants to take it). If fisheries, LPF and other issues can be resolved and the terms of an FTA agreed, HMG can then withdraw the offending provisions of the IM Bill on the basis that they have served their purpose; by demonstrating the UK's fearless resolve they have brought the EU to its knees and forced it (a) to withdraw its dastardly threat to blockade food supplies to NI and (b) to grant the UK the world-beating trade deal it so richly deserves. This shallow posturing will not bother the EU in the slightest if works as a fig-leaf for the necessary UK climbdown. The FTA won't be ratified by the European Parliament until the UK has done what it needs to on the IM Bill.