Page 3 of 4
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:30 am
by Lurcher300b
Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:30 am
Can anyone please to explain to me, how and why the UK Government's approach to breaking the law discussed in the article quoted in the original post ISN'T a sensible pragmatic solution?
I'm happy to admit that I'm no expert on International Law and the full complexities of Brexit. Maybe I can learn something here.
Maybe there is a valid reason to object to the UK breaking this law in these circumstances?
Or maybe it's more a case of some people not liking the Conservative Government and are looking for any excuse to stick the knife into them? Regardless of whether they deserve it or not.
When I attended a Black Lives Matter protest several weeks ago, the chant broke out "Boris is a racist."
This to me said far more about the people chanting it than it did about Boris Johnson.
“Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:59 am
by Docfoster
Lindsayt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:30 am
On the subject of breaking the law, I've been told by more than one person - although I don't know if this is true or bullshit - that there is some law that prohibits the use of razor wire.
The prisons in England and Wales use razor wire. A lot. If they didn't they'd need to increase staffing levels quite significantly, for fairly obvious reasons.
Apparently the prison service pays a fine every year as this is cheaper than the increase in the wage bill that they'd have if they took down the razor wire.
That to me - if it's true - is a sensible pragmatic decision.
Can anyone please to explain to me, how and why the UK Government's approach to breaking the law discussed in the article quoted in the original post ISN'T a sensible pragmatic solution?
I'm happy to admit that I'm no expert on International Law and the full complexities of Brexit. Maybe I can learn something here.
Maybe there is a valid reason to object to the UK breaking this law in these circumstances?
Or maybe it's more a case of some people not liking the Conservative Government and are looking for any excuse to stick the knife into them? Regardless of whether they deserve it or not.
I don't like the Tory government. The judgement part of my brain has judged them based on what their words and deeds reveal about their values.
The number of people in parliament who want to make it easier for prisoners to escape is a tiny minority. I presume zero. The number of people (in and outside parliament) who want the UK government to break the conditions of a treaty that they triumphantly wafted, signed and used a vehicle to gain power seems to be a minority. If the bill doesn't get voted through next week I can't see how the proposal could be seen as pragmatic or sensible solution to the NI "problem". Though I accept that it could be a very effective pragmatic and sensible solution to the problem of how the government can appear even more like an ultra-patriotic romantic hero.
I don't want to be governed by an ultra-patriotic romantic hero.
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:08 pm
by SteveTheShadow
With this latest jape, Johnson is managing to alienate new Brexitty MPs, the nutters of the ERG, and even old 'moderates' who were clinging on (like Howard).
Early next year, by the time we see the reality of the Brexit Johnson is currently lining up to be the deal we all wanted, finally 'done', they'll all be fighting like rats in a sack.
Then the Tories will split 2 or 3 ways - so that'll be something to celebrate.
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:47 pm
by Ordinaryman
Whilst speculation as to the reason and phiosopical views on the question are bound to arise they will never answer it. Governments have invariably failed to live up there manifestos and statements (IMO) after 58 years of voting. We are far less actively involved in the processes than our European counterparts and it is impossible to point a finger at any individual group, political or not. As I have already stated Mr Blair did this and suffered little from it. I'm sure there must be many other's? As for the legality of it it would take a far better understanding of international law than I possess.
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:05 pm
by CN211276
Ordinaryman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:47 pm
As for the legality of it it would take a far better understanding of international law than I possess.
Legal technacalities aside, Britain is now a rogue nation. An agreement was signed and the Government intends to renege on it.
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:39 pm
by Ordinaryman
many agreements in the past by the British government have been reneged on, you choose. As for being a "rogue nation" amongst whom would be my question? once again we are back to semantics. what do you propose we do to change this situation? no disrespect meant. someone once said" actions speak louder than words" ill leave it with you
PS. 52 years not 58. time and tide etc.
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:53 pm
by CN211276
Ordinaryman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 5:39 pm
many agreements in the past by the British government have been reneged on
Which ones and within eight months of signature?
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:17 pm
by Ordinaryman
Is it the particular timeframe you wish to know or the signifece? I will however do my best to recall and post. Attley/Hitler springs to mind. Though I could be wrong
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:58 pm
by CN211276
Ordinaryman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:17 pm
Is it the particular timeframe you wish to know or the signifece? I will however do my best to recall and post. Attley/Hitler springs to mind. Though I could be wrong
I am not aware of anything of this magnitude from an English head of state since Harold broke his solem promise to hand over the English crown to William of Normandy nearly a thousand years ago and the timeframe was longer than eight months. Pity Johnson wont meet the same fate.
Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 8:32 pm
by Ordinaryman
So, the war in iraq was not, neither clement attlees statement regarding Germany, the Jewish community dumped on the sand banks of the thames? after bailing out the current king,( can't off hand remember which) but I'm sure you will. Henry V111 in 1533 breaking from the church for his own desires ? do they not qualify?