Why Are The E U S S R So Terrified?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54370226
we haven't even passed the law yet, let alone invoked it. All they have to do is stop playing silly burgers and do a deal, why is that so difficult?

[ToraToraTora]

TCL: "If an action is or will be, contrary to conditions in an agreed Treaty, why would that not be breaking that Treaty? " - who said it would not? I'm saying being prepared to is not in itself breaking the treaty. That's what this bill does.

[ToraToraTora]

"Nevertheless, you're confusing two levels of law. If Parliament were passing a law that overrode a previous *domestic* law then that would, of course, be within its power. " - So is the actual act of passing this law itself illegal? I don't think so, so it's no different to my brick through window analogy above.

[TrevorThePug]

Why Are The EU So Terrified?

They aren't.

Launching legal action is not a sign of terror, but a message to all nations across the world that the present UK government is not be trusted.

[jim360]

// I can't be arrested for saying I am prepared, under some conditions, to through a brick through a window, can I? //

Also a strange analogy: conspiracy to commit certain crimes is an offence, whether or not they were actually carried out. Never mind that this is trying to equate domestic with international law again.

[ToraToraTora]

ok to clarify, if we say we are prepared to break a treaty, is that alone against IL even if said treaty is never actually broken?

[Peter Pedant]

// Boris should just politely tell Ms von Leyden to 'fous le camp'.//
yes no
I think TTT should do it as minister plenipotentiary temporaire
and - ally-voo is easily good enough - no comprehende?
shout it again at 120 dB

I mean jesus we solve so many problems l"like zat!" on AB
and before lunch

[Peter Pedant]

so many questions
why isnt TTT PM and leading us?
that is what I want to know

I mean even Pres Trump said of the frogs
were they on the winning side?

[THECORBYLOON]

'TCL: "If an action is or will be, contrary to conditions in an agreed Treaty, why would that not be breaking that Treaty? " - who said it would not?'

You did, when you wrote,
"the government can legally take a path that may be contrary to a past treaty. That does not mean that we have or will break any such treaty"

[Jackdaw33]

'Allez-vous-en' is far too mild an expression to use when dealing with the EU.

[ToraToraTora]

TCL: //'TCL: "If an action is or will be, contrary to conditions in an agreed Treaty, why would that not be breaking that Treaty? " - who said it would not?'
You did, when you wrote,
"the government can legally take a path that may be contrary to a past treaty. That does not mean that we have or will break any such treaty"// - you were talking about an " Action" - I agree that would break a treaty. When said ||the government can legally take a path that may be contrary to a past treaty!! I am talking about being able and prepared to but not actually taking the action.

[ToraToraTora]

can someone answer my point at 13:56.

[THECORBYLOON]

In this example, taking a path IS taking an action which contravenes the Treaty.

If it does not contravene the Treaty, why is there the need for the Bill currently going through Parliament?

[gulliver1]

Headlines on 1st Jan 2021,
.....Britain Stands Alone ......Rule Britannia....

[ToraToraTora]

TCL: "If it does not contravene the Treaty, why is there the need for the Bill currently going through Parliament?" - that's what I am trying to comprehend with my question at 13:56.

[TrevorThePug]

The Bill signals a breach of the UKs obligations.

The EU takes this action against member states hundreds of times a year, its not particularly unique, they said they would do this at the end of September when the Bill was raised.

Johnson will remove the offending provisions before the end of October.

[Old_Geezer]

So what needs to be done to simply denunciate and leave them to their legal shenanigans ?

[New Judge]

//...conspiracy to commit certain crimes is an offence,//

Just a point of legal pedantry: saying you are prepared to do something is not conspiracy. Conspiracy requires two or more persons.

[Togo]

//If Parliament were passing a law that overrode a previous *domestic* law then that would, of course, be within its power.//

Parliament is not even going that far. It is merely reinstating a previous treaty...You know the one that treacherous May and her traitorous helpers tried to bypass with an under the radar agreement with the eager to backstab Britain EUSSR. You know the initial agreement which is actually in clear breach of Article Six of the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland which states, "No duty or bounty on exportation of produce of one country to the other. All articles the produce of either country shall be imported free from duty." That treaty still stands and has never been rescinded. Why are we still even trying to make deals with someone that is taking legal action against us? Would you fetch the neighbours morning paper when he is engaging a brief to sue you?

[ToraToraTora]

good point togs, BA.