|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 18, 2022 11:45:17 GMT
The very first article in the Protocol states:
“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement”
The Good Friday Agreement takes precedence over the Protocol. The UK as a guarantor of the GFA has an obligation and duty to ensure the Protocol doesn't threaten the GFA.
The Protocol isn't permanent.
The solicitor-general told parliament:
“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.]
Either the EU adhere to their own treaty or they negotiated with the UK in bad faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 18, 2022 11:45:43 GMT
no - but it takes time to work through the courts and then you have to have the will to implement any decisions by those courts. what makes you think we are going to be any more motivated to implement decisions by an EU court than we are about implementing the Protocol? Because there's deniability at the moment - the Government can claim their interpretation of the treaty is legitimate. That deniability vanishes when there is a court judgment. You don't seem to understand that the Government is currently not refusing to implement the Protocol - it is saying it is implementing the Protocol. When the Court rules that the Government is not fact doing so, that changes everything. If the Government does not implement the Protocol at that point, it is plainly refusing to implement the Protocol. That is a whole different ballgame. It is saying nothing of the sort - the Foreign Secretary stood up in the HoC on 17th May and said: "As the House will know, the Protocol has not yet been implemented in full due to the operation of grace periods and easements."Stop inventing nonsense... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 11:47:59 GMT
Because there's deniability at the moment - the Government can claim their interpretation of the treaty is legitimate. That deniability vanishes when there is a court judgment. You don't seem to understand that the Government is currently not refusing to implement the Protocol - it is saying it is implementing the Protocol. When the Court rules that the Government is not fact doing so, that changes everything. If the Government does not implement the Protocol at that point, it is plainly refusing to implement the Protocol. That is a whole different ballgame. It is saying nothing of the sort - the Foreign Secretary stood up in the HoC on 17th May and said: "As the House will know, the Protocol has not yet been implemented in full due to the operation of grace periods and easements."Stop inventing nonsense... Erm ... the Government is claiming to be acting entirely within the law. When the Court rules against it, it will no longer have that option. That's the point at which things will change. You wanted to know why the Government couldn't continue to act as it has been doing indefinitely. Now you have your answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 11:52:14 GMT
The very first article in the Protocol states: “This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement” The Good Friday Agreement takes precedence over the Protocol. The UK as a guarantor of the GFA has an obligation and duty to ensure the Protocol doesn't threaten the GFA. The Protocol isn't permanent. The solicitor-general told parliament: “article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.] Either the EU adhere to their own treaty or they negotiated with the UK in bad faith. The EU is adhering to its own treaty. Article 16 can't be triggered for interference with trade with NI which was foreseeable at the time the treaty was signed. It would be wonderful if Sunak would trigger it, though. That would be the end of the current Government. I don't think he will, but fingers crossed ... |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 18, 2022 13:49:42 GMT
The very first article in the Protocol states: “This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement” The Good Friday Agreement takes precedence over the Protocol. The UK as a guarantor of the GFA has an obligation and duty to ensure the Protocol doesn't threaten the GFA. The Protocol isn't permanent. The solicitor-general told parliament: “article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.] Either the EU adhere to their own treaty or they negotiated with the UK in bad faith. The EU is adhering to its own treaty. Article 16 can't be triggered for interference with trade with NI which was foreseeable at the time the treaty was signed. It would be wonderful if Sunak would trigger it, though. That would be the end of the current Government. I don't think he will, but fingers crossed ... Wrong. The protocol explicitly states art.16 can be triggered for issues with trade. The protocol wasn't designed to hinder trade, quite the opposite. The protocol also isn't permanent. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 13:55:42 GMT
The EU is adhering to its own treaty. Article 16 can't be triggered for interference with trade with NI which was foreseeable at the time the treaty was signed. It would be wonderful if Sunak would trigger it, though. That would be the end of the current Government. I don't think he will, but fingers crossed ... Wrong. The protocol explicitly states art.16 can be triggered for issues with trade. The protocol wasn't designed to hinder trade, quite the opposite. The protocol also isn't permanent. Nope. Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable. The Protocol was written to be understood by lawyers, and standard legal rules of textual interpretation will be applied to it if it ever ends up before the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 18, 2022 14:02:41 GMT
The referendum became mandatory when Cameron said that he would abide by the result. And NI's trade with Britain has been damaged by the protocol - which is exactly what the EU intended of course. . An entire parliament cannot bind a future parliament, let alone one member of it, like Cameron. Cameron had zero right to speak on behalf of Parliament, nor had he the right to tell Parliament what to do. The Prime Minister is not sovereign in the UK constitution, Parliament is. Have you read what Cameron said about this? Obviously not. Cameron said that he thought that the promise to "honour" the referendum verdict would never be called in because he didn't think for a second that he would win a majority at the election. But he did. Therefore the referendum became mandatory - or bye bye Tory party. The trouble with you EUphiles is that you don't seem to have followed what was going on. I did. But it becomes a bore having to tell you the history of what actually happened and why. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 14:05:54 GMT
Really? It became mandatory when Cameron said he would abide by the result? You frequently complain that we Remoaners don't know anything about the EU, yet you appear to know nothing about the UK's constitution. An entire parliament cannot bind a future parliament, let alone one member of it, like Cameron. Cameron had zero right to speak on behalf of Parliament, nor had he the right to tell Parliament what to do. The Prime Minister is not sovereign in the UK constitution, Parliament is. Have you read what Cameron said about this? Obviously not. Cameron said that he thought that the promise to "honour" the referendum verdict would never be called in because he didn't think for a second that he would win a majority at the election. But he did. Therefore the referendum became mandatory - or bye bye Tory party. The trouble with you EUphiles is that you don't seem to have followed what was going on. I did. But it becomes a bore having to tell you the history of what actually happened and why. Your earlier post seemed to suggest that Cameron's 'promise' should be given a status it doesn't deserve. It doesn't matter what Cameron promised. He is just one member of Parliament. The majority in Parliament is sovereign, not one member, even if he is the Prime Minister. Cameron had no more authority to speak on behalf of Parliament than you or I have. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 18, 2022 14:09:07 GMT
Wrong. The protocol explicitly states art.16 can be triggered for issues with trade. The protocol wasn't designed to hinder trade, quite the opposite. The protocol also isn't permanent. Nope. Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable. The Protocol was written to be understood by lawyers, and standard legal rules of textual interpretation will be applied to it if it ever ends up before the courts. Link to this claim that "Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable" because the Protocol contradicts this claim. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 18, 2022 14:09:09 GMT
Darling said "Nope. Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable. The Protocol was written to be understood by lawyers, and standard legal rules of textual interpretation will be applied to it if it ever ends up before the courts."
"Standard rules of legal interpretation" - are you fucking serious? The interpretation of legal documents is decided by courts - and there's no STANDARD anything there. Their decisions are decided by prejudice and precedent. The legal documents are always ambiguous. Where do you get this nonsense from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 14:12:03 GMT
Nope. Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable. The Protocol was written to be understood by lawyers, and standard legal rules of textual interpretation will be applied to it if it ever ends up before the courts. Link to this claim that "Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable" because the Protocol contradicts this claim. We had this conversation on the last forum. I have access to a university law library and had four articles to support that contention. It would take several hours to read through all of them again. I have no intention of doing that. You can take it or leave it, but any former law students on this site will know what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 18, 2022 14:13:25 GMT
Link to this claim that "Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable" because the Protocol contradicts this claim. We had this conversation on the last forum. I have access to a university law library and had four articles to support that contention. It would take several hours to read through all of them again. I have no intention of doing that again. You can take it or leave it, but any former law students on this site will know what I'm talking about. You are talking BS. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 14:18:01 GMT
We had this conversation on the last forum. I have access to a university law library and had four articles to support that contention. It would take several hours to read through all of them again. I have no intention of doing that again. You can take it or leave it, but any former law students on this site will know what I'm talking about. You are talking BS. What kind of example is that to set for Snuggles? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 14:39:35 GMT
Darling said " Nope. Standard rules of legal interpretation exclude trade interference that was foreseeable. The Protocol was written to be understood by lawyers, and standard legal rules of textual interpretation will be applied to it if it ever ends up before the courts." "Standard rules of legal interpretation" - are you fucking serious? The interpretation of legal documents is decided by courts - and there's no STANDARD anything there. Their decisions are decided by prejudice and precedent. The legal documents are always ambiguous. Where do you get this nonsense from? Okay, Snugs, all legal documents are 'decided by prejudice'. I don't know what you're getting into such a snot about, anyway: I'd love to see Sunak trigger Article 16. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 15:02:38 GMT
The very first article in the Protocol states: “This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement” The Good Friday Agreement takes precedence over the Protocol. The UK as a guarantor of the GFA has an obligation and duty to ensure the Protocol doesn't threaten the GFA. The Protocol isn't permanent. The solicitor-general told parliament: “article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.] Either the EU adhere to their own treaty or they negotiated with the UK in bad faith. You quote Peter Lilley almost verbatim. Fair enough, but he is wrong. "Without Prejudice" is not about precedence or priority. It is about one thing not being damaging or detrimental to another. The statement "Without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement" can not mean that the GFA takes automatic precedence over the Protocol. It means that the Protocol is not detrimental to or does not harm, damage or change the GFA. The Protocol does not diminish the GFA and vice versa. Even Braverman, in her attempt to diminish the Protocol and put the GFA before it, could only come up with a lame and ambiguous statement that the "GFA has primordial significance over the Protocol". The Protocol, arguably, may not be permanent but it is an agreement ratified by both the EU and the UK so it is legally binding. Nowhere does it say in this legally binding agreement that the UK can unilaterally amend, override or revoke it. Hence, this legislation giving power to the cabinet to override the agreement unilaterally, as and when they please. And considering Dominic Cummings tweet that the UK's intention was to get Johnson to sign the agreement and then "to ditch the bits we didn't like after whacking Corbyn..."; it is us who negotiated in bad faith. |
|
