It basically comes down to whether one thinks it right to break international laws or wrong to. Why should anyone adhere to any law if that's the case. Johnsons law
you will have to ask Boris. I have said all along that he shouldn't have signed it. We should have just walked away. The EU has acted in bad faith. Saying all that... this is all just posturing.
Who would have guessed that Geoffrey Cox was another useful idiot. Perhaps Ellers can enlighten us that he too, alongside Michael Howard is a die hard Remainer.
Where have I ever called either a ’useful idiot’ you show me or shut up. Actually you won't be able to so just shut up.
Miliband just made a very good speech in the House of Commons - standing in for Starmer - which completely eviscerated Johnson's arguments. On the point of the EU acting in "bad faith" he highlighted that Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol already enables the UK or the EU to unilaterally take measures to address any serious "economic, societal or environmental difficulties" arising from the application of the Protocol [see here and search for Article 16]. Geoffrey Cox, current Tory MP and most recent former Attorney General makes much the same point in his Times article. This very clearly undermines the argument that this Bill is even justified through actual bad faith on the part of the EU, let alone by reported bad faith from a newspaper or partisan negotiator. Which then, naturally, leads onto why Johnson is trying to unravel his own half baked Brexit deal. The answer, of course, is to get around the trade barriers in the Irish sea which he voluntarily agreed to and promised the ERG he would deal with at a later point, by, it turns out, ignoring international law and trashing our reputation.
Javid, who resigned from the cabinet earlier this year, said it was not clear why it was necessary to break international law and that he was “regretfully unable to support the UK internal market bill” unamended. He said instead the UK should wait until it was clear the EU intended to act in bad faith and until then use the safeguards already enshrined in the withdrawal agreement.
No, a binding agreement was signed without anything stating for future amendments, the Eu are just expecting the government to honour a document they put together!!! As anyone in their position would do. I appreciate your position that the document should never have been signed, but it was and the U.K. is duty bound to honour it, as well as legally bound. The whole Eu is not acting in good faith is a nonsense and a distraction, what would they do if the U.K. honour the agreement? Nothing Boris needs to honour what he has done.
I’ll be totally honest I don’t know barely anything about that. Whatever they did do does nothing to get Boris and co out of the obligations they’ve put in.
There was a great programme a year or so back on BBC2 (Inside the EU ?), a 3 parter that had one entire episode about what the EU did from the inside and the people involved.....was fascinating and well worth a watch. Trust me mate, the EU aren’t the ‘golden child’ that some make out and are just as bad, if not worse at times, that the Tories (who I hate just as much). The EU is not the friend of the worker or the people.
Has Barnier denied Frost's public claim yesterday, that Barnier's team explicitly threatened to deny the UK third country listing and thus prevent Northern Ireland importing products from Great Britain? ....no, didn't think so. For a man who likes to be seen, he's gone very quiet
Sorry Wills I missed this. I do believe that the WA discussed a free trade deal and that both sides should act in good faith. You can't put all the blame on us.
