Audiophile discussion, articles, bake-offs, Doc-Mods, music. NVA reviews, loan scheme, orders & support. Phono stages, amplifiers, semi-omni speakers, cables, headphone amps, digital, vinyl.
https://www.hifisubjectivist.org/
The government, as I heard today, is also apparently trying to turn Gina Miller's winning judgement on it's head somehow and use it as proof of parliamentary soveriegnty, and that doesn't work either.Attorney General @suellabraverman still hasn’t resigned, but she has broken her recent silence on the Internal Market Bill by publishing a statement of HM Government’s ‘legal position’ on it.
It runs to one side of A4.
And it is utterly risible.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916702/UKIM_Legal_Statement.pdf
The Government’s statement is risible because it utterly misses the central point of concern. That concern is that the Internal Market Bill authorises Ministers to repudiate specific, critical and recently agreed legal obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement & NI Protocol.
The AG freely acknowledges this and concedes that the UK is required, as a matter of international law, to discharge its treat obligations in good faith. She then attempts, but fails, to make an exceptionalist argument based on parliamentary sovereignty & dualism.
The contention appears to be that because the UK’s internal constitutional arrangements allow Parliament, as a matter of *domestic* law, validly to enact any *domestic* law, this somehow makes it acceptable for the UK to breach *international* law. That is a non sequitur.
The AG also places weight on but misunderstands the implications of the ‘dualist’ nature of the UK legal system. She claims that it means that ‘treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation’. That is flatly incorrect.
In a dualist system, matters set out in treaties are *enforceable in* domestic law only to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation — but treaty obligations are nevertheless *binding* on the State in *international law*.
The Government’s argument is that Parliament’s legal capacity in domestic law to make any law it wants somehow makes it acceptable, as a matter of international law, for the UK to renege on its treaty obligations. But the latter does not follow from the former.
Contrary to the Government’s position, the UK, like every other State, is required in international law to abide by its treaty obligations. Neither parliamentary sovereignty nor the notion of dualism is any answer to that point.
The UK may have left the EU, but it has not left the community of nations or the rules-based international order. Treaty obligations are binding upon the UK, and to suggest that they are not ‘because Parliament is sovereign’ is as embarrassing as it is dangerous.
Sir Bob Neill MP
@neill_bob
Any breach, or potential breach, of the international legal obligations we have entered into is unacceptable, regardless of whether it’s in a ‘specific’ or ‘limited way’.
Adherence to the rule of law is not negotiable.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/13 ... O5ilQ5.mp4
2:15 PM · Sep 8, 2020·Twitter Web App
Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:30 am“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.”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.
I think this is a good description of what has been going on ever since the referendum was anounced. There is a good documentary in the iaplayer series about the Murdoch empire which sheds a lot of light on the situation. The gutter tabloid press were pivortal in convincing masses that black is really white.Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:15 amLurcher300b wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:30 am“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.”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.