View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 604 of 608
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608  Next

Efros
1358417.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:43 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
I kind of get what Cel is saying here.

It is (afaik) in no way illegal for me to talk, or write, about my plans to break various laws as and when it suits my purpose to do it. If I act on those plans, then I am guilty of an offence, but my putative plans to do so were not, in and of themselves, a crime.


That depends on the plans and the crimes that are being planned I believe. If you are planning with an accomplice that would be a conspiracy, "going equipped" to commit a crime is also a crime. Collecting information in planning a terrorist act is a crime IIRC.

 
Alexander Howard
1358418.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:00 pm Reply with quote

It's all good fun, but "international law" is not law in the strict sense, so the analogies do not work. If you were to make an analogy with real, domestic law, repudiating a treaty obligation is more akin to breach of contract, and you can't be arrested for that.

 
Celebaelin
1358419.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:15 pm Reply with quote

costean wrote:
You seem sympathetic to the idea.

I imagine we've all found ourselves in situations where we wished the world was other than it is because how it is does not suit our circumstances. This is however way beyond the idle wish-fulfillment fantasies of consequence free irresponsibility; this is a matter for thoughtful and responsible grown-ups and grown up attitudes to matters of duty in honouring negotiated settlements. The shirking of the terms of established agreements is not the way in which to approach a change in the methodology of the UK's interaction with the EU.

Historically this sort of disregard for the opinion of other nations has been a prelude to ever greater forms of self-delusion regarding national 'destiny' or 'right' cloaked in the guise of perceived victimisation and leading to strategies intended to establish superiority, suzerainity or even dominance in some form or another without all the tedious business of tact, diplomacy or in fact any justification other than that age old cry of the selfish child "I want".

costean wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
But if I unilaterally publish a statement to the effect that I don't accept the laws of the UK and fully intend to ignore them when it pleases me to do so then I'm not doing anything wrong am I?

What do you think, or is this anarchists' logic?

I think the situations are essentially parallel with the only difference being scale. Arguing that it is not this or that type of law or that it is not a matter of law at all does not change the perfectly reasonable expectation that once a nation agrees to a negotiated settlement then in order to remain a credible negotiating entity it must stick to that agreement or re-negotiate it to accommodate new circumstances not simply decide that it doesn't count because some guy in the third row from the back when it was signed had his fingers crossed.

The entire notion of unilateral declarations of supreme authority in such matters is delusionally megalomaniacal in a way that hasn't been seen in international affairs by any 'serious' nation for quite some decades until relatively recently. The notion that any government functions in isolation is frankly completely ridiculous. The further distancing of the UK from our European neighbours beyond that mandated and in fact demanded by the electorate can only be damaging to all parties involved and this game of political and economic chicken needs to end. If the remaining EU nations believe they need to ride roughshod over the affairs of what is now a non-member state then they cannot be all that confident in the financial health of their union can they? How long will it be before someone even slightly less infantile gets involved with the 'Brexit' negotiations and establishes a climate of agreement with the obvious fact that what all the nations of Europe need in these troubled times is an equitable solution to the problem. Said solution must allow the UK Government to fulfill its responsibilities to honour both the popular vote in the UK (by dint of which they are empowered by public consent and in reality ONLY by public consent) and more particularly its economic responsibilities to the population of Northern Ireland as a result of that self-same mechanism and also by their popular approval of a negotiated processes to whit at least Strands 1 and 2 of the Good Friday Agreement and doubtless other accords, conventions and maybe a few official treaties.

Quote:
Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he is committed to "getting rid" of the backstop, describing it as "anti-democratic". His government has instead proposed the idea of a "single regulatory zone" on the island of Ireland. That would mean Northern Ireland continuing to follow EU rules on animal health, food safety and manufactured goods. It would effectively mean a new regulatory border in the Irish Sea with checks and controls at ports.
The DUP say they can accept this as long as there is a role for the Northern Ireland Assembly to give ongoing consent to these arrangements. On customs, the UK has said Northern Ireland must leave the EU customs union. However the Prime Minister believes checks at the Irish frontier can be avoided by instead having customs processes mainly at company premises. The EU is sceptical about this and the latest negotiations have focused largely on customs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404

On balance this is a stupid, piffling thing to be arguing about. Food standards? Really? How often are spot checks conducted within the EU? What proportion of producers fail them? Why the filibuster on this? Does the EU fear some weakness may be exploited? Why not accept that samples of products for export will at intervals be tested for compliance to imposed regulations by the importing company in the final country of destination (with whom rests the legal responsibility for any distribution in that country) and let it go at that?

The whole thing looks like bunkum to me - to jeopardise the UK's international reputation as (I believe) a trustworthy trading partner over this is just dumb. What exactly this debacle is intended to serve as a distraction from I'm unsure but in and of itself it's an idiotic sticking point.


Last edited by Celebaelin on Wed Sep 16, 2020 5:46 am; edited 4 times in total

 
PDR
1358421.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:22 pm Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
How often are spot checks conducted within the EU? What proportion of producers fail them?


Remember the horse-meat scandal?

PDR

 
PDR
1358422.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:31 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
It's all good fun, but "international law" is not law in the strict sense, so the analogies do not work. If you were to make an analogy with real, domestic law, repudiating a treaty obligation is more akin to breach of contract, and you can't be arrested for that.


But if we establish this practice no one will bother entering into trade deals with us because we clearly don't regard sticking to a deal to be important.

So it's a pointless exercise. Either we are people who will honour our commitments and so worth making deals with, or we are people who don't honour commitments and so negotiating trade deals with us is pointless wasted effort.

We expect moral depravity from brexit supporters because it rather goes with the territory, but this level of immorality is truly breathtaking. I have written to the credit-rating agencies and asked them to ensure that they establish whether a subject is an overt brexit supporter because clearly such people must be given a zero rating as they expect to be able to dishonour any commitment on a whim.

PDR

 
Alexander Howard
1358423.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:33 pm Reply with quote

Can you be arrested for braking the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Or at least attempting to.

 
PDR
1358424.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:35 pm Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
barbados wrote:
People are quite happy to overlook breaking the law if it suits them to do so.

Perhaps you are, but itís not everyone who suffers from that level of moral turpitude.


I did actually ask him that question a few pages back, and he declined to answer. But while he did give Tetts an answer to the same question this statement would appear to contradict that answer.

I guess we must draw our own conclusions from this.

PDR

 
PDR
1358426.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:36 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
Can you be arrested for braking the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Or at least attempting to.


That is a stupid question, even for you.

PDR

 
suze
1358427.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:40 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
If you were to make an analogy with real, domestic law, repudiating a treaty obligation is more akin to breach of contract, and you can't be arrested for that.


No you can't, but that doesn't mean you're "allowed" to do it.

If I burgle your house then I have done something which is illegal and I can be arrested for it. But if you and I enter into a contract and I break it, then I have done a thing which is unlawful, and it's going to cost me money when you take me to court.

Now, there may be circumstances in which it's more convenient for me to hold my hands up and pay you the money than to fulfil the contract. That's my outlook, but I don't really want to get a reputation for breaking contracts whenever I feel like it. If I acquire that reputation, there's the risk that people will think "Maybe don't enter into a contract with suze, because she doesn't keep her end of the bargain". That is the danger that the UK runs, and it seems unlikely to be A Good Thing.

 
Celebaelin
1358428.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:43 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
Remember the horse-meat scandal?

Yes but that's an example of what the checks are for not any indicator of an approach to a solution to this.

I wasn't implying that the testing process was faulty I was trying to suggest that one tester in any given country is very much like a counterpart in another country - to perform the job effectively an element of credibility must be present and I'm sure a level of testing commensurate with guarantees of public health etc. can be implemented for products that require that. That new production methods might be introduced in the UK more rapidly because of a reduced bureaucratic delay is the only thing I can imagine that might realistically worry the member states of the EU and that's not really a regulatory issue assuming any applied test standards are i) reasonable and ii) are met.


Last edited by Celebaelin on Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:58 pm; edited 2 times in total

 
Alexander Howard
1358429.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:47 pm Reply with quote

The latter is a good argument. The word 'law' is a misleading one as it has sent some commentators off in completely the wrong direction, hence my remark: there is law and there is 'law'. International 'law' is not law because it is not made nor enforced by a sovereign authority. It is merely convention. That said, it is convention that has kept peace in the world (mostly).

It is a matter of reputation and trust. You could also say that if two sides make a tense arrangement and one side intends to abuse the position and not act in good faith, as apparently the EU has threatened, then a reputation for weakness, of rolling over and being done over, is a worse reputation to have. That seems to be the thinking.

 
Celebaelin
1358432.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:57 pm Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
...one side intends to abuse the position and not act in good faith, as apparently the EU has threatened...

What now? Do you know any of the details of this allegation?

 
PDR
1358433.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:03 pm Reply with quote

@ Alexander
Your contention that as it's contract law rather than criminal law you can't be arrested for it is dubious as well. There are many contract violations which can get you arrested - fraud, misrepresentation, rendering a false instrument, bribery etc.

Breaking international law (ie treaties) can also get you arrested - ask Abu Hamsa or Julian Assange.

So your basic premise is a house of cards built on the quicksand of misinterpretation.

PDR


Last edited by PDR on Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:32 pm; edited 2 times in total

 
Alexander Howard
1358435.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:14 pm Reply with quote

Not true: Abu Hamza was arrested for mass murder, and Julian Assange for rape. International law is not law. The word is misleading you.

And no, you can never be arrested for breach of contract because there is a fundamental distinction between civil law and criminal law. Fraud is a crime, forgery is a crime: these are not breaches of contract. The concepts are different.

 
Celebaelin
1358436.  Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:21 pm Reply with quote

Don't unacceptable forms of criminality have to be mentioned as breach of contract so that those who entered into the contract but didn't commit the (associated) crime cannot be held responsible and/or liable?


Last edited by Celebaelin on Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

 

Page 604 of 608
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group