Body & Soul46 mins ago
Ed Miliband
The Humiliation of Boris Johnson yesterday by Ed Miliband was classic .
He pointed out the lifetime of lies that Boris has told about the E/U.
Fat Tounged, Slack Jawed, Wide eyed, and Wobbling sat Boris on the front bench Alone. and faced down his inevitable humiliation.As miliband calmly laid out before him one by one,, each of Boris's many many lies,
that had made him PM, Boris could do nothing but shake his head, and force short grunts. It was classic , just like Geoffrey Howe Bringing down Thatcher.
He pointed out the lifetime of lies that Boris has told about the E/U.
Fat Tounged, Slack Jawed, Wide eyed, and Wobbling sat Boris on the front bench Alone. and faced down his inevitable humiliation.As miliband calmly laid out before him one by one,, each of Boris's many many lies,
that had made him PM, Boris could do nothing but shake his head, and force short grunts. It was classic , just like Geoffrey Howe Bringing down Thatcher.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//This is why International Law exists, and this is also why we kick up a fuss when other nations act recklessly in violation of International Law.//
The EU is no paragon of virtue when it comes to “International Law” (whatever that is). It has refused to comply with WTO judgements and flouts WTO rules on GM crops, hormone beef and allows Airbus to receive generous subsidies. The ECJ has ruled that the EU has no obligation to follow WTO law if it erodes the EU’s influence. That same court also ruled that the EU may disregard the UN Charter if it is at odds with the EU’s constitution.
The fact is the NI Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement provided for sensible arrangements for goods entering NI from the rest of the UK to counter the tremendous worries the EU had about the UK flooding its precious Single Market with contraband. It relies on the EU behaving reasonably by allowing identification of goods which were destined to remain in NI and those which may cross the border. With particular regard to food, as part of its negotiations “in Good Faith” the EU has refused to list the UK as a country from which food imports can be allowed without check. This is despite the UK having been an EU member for more than 40 years and adhering to all EU regulations. This brings the prospect of customs and compliance checks for food imports from GB to NI. The ultimate sanction (so the EU says) is that it will blockade food cargo from entering NI from GB. As an aside, quite how it will achieve this blockade, preventing goods to be moved from one part of a sovereign nation to another is a little unclear, but the idea that they even consider it is outrageous.
Mr Johnson, it seems, has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. The idea that a treaty has been signed which, if enforced to its extreme, could prevent the movement of goods within the UK is preposterous. I don’t know why it was ever signed and I don’t care. What is important is that steps are taken to override its effect immediately. If that leaves our international reputation in tatters, better that than having a reputation as a country which allows its internal affairs to be dictated by a foreign power.
The EU is no paragon of virtue when it comes to “International Law” (whatever that is). It has refused to comply with WTO judgements and flouts WTO rules on GM crops, hormone beef and allows Airbus to receive generous subsidies. The ECJ has ruled that the EU has no obligation to follow WTO law if it erodes the EU’s influence. That same court also ruled that the EU may disregard the UN Charter if it is at odds with the EU’s constitution.
The fact is the NI Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement provided for sensible arrangements for goods entering NI from the rest of the UK to counter the tremendous worries the EU had about the UK flooding its precious Single Market with contraband. It relies on the EU behaving reasonably by allowing identification of goods which were destined to remain in NI and those which may cross the border. With particular regard to food, as part of its negotiations “in Good Faith” the EU has refused to list the UK as a country from which food imports can be allowed without check. This is despite the UK having been an EU member for more than 40 years and adhering to all EU regulations. This brings the prospect of customs and compliance checks for food imports from GB to NI. The ultimate sanction (so the EU says) is that it will blockade food cargo from entering NI from GB. As an aside, quite how it will achieve this blockade, preventing goods to be moved from one part of a sovereign nation to another is a little unclear, but the idea that they even consider it is outrageous.
Mr Johnson, it seems, has finally woken up and smelt the coffee. The idea that a treaty has been signed which, if enforced to its extreme, could prevent the movement of goods within the UK is preposterous. I don’t know why it was ever signed and I don’t care. What is important is that steps are taken to override its effect immediately. If that leaves our international reputation in tatters, better that than having a reputation as a country which allows its internal affairs to be dictated by a foreign power.
Boris aint gonna let EU bully UK!
https:/
https:/
Why should it matter whether the EU is "no paragon of virtue" on the matter of International Law, at least in terms of whether we also strive to be? Principles aren't any less valuable because others break them.
Nor does reaching for a global market help matters, as tamborine suggests, because firstly trade with the EU will always remain vital for the UK, and secondly because if we break our word with one partner, what incentive is there for anyone else to take our word seriously in future either? We have already seen, for example, that the US takes a dim view of the UK's approach, and since we would presumably wish to turn to them for trade deals in future, measures that scupper that relationship would be clearly detrimental.
It's far too insular a view to follow NJ's suggestion. The UK cannot prosper by caring only about its internal affairs and not about its reputation on the world stage.
Nor does reaching for a global market help matters, as tamborine suggests, because firstly trade with the EU will always remain vital for the UK, and secondly because if we break our word with one partner, what incentive is there for anyone else to take our word seriously in future either? We have already seen, for example, that the US takes a dim view of the UK's approach, and since we would presumably wish to turn to them for trade deals in future, measures that scupper that relationship would be clearly detrimental.
It's far too insular a view to follow NJ's suggestion. The UK cannot prosper by caring only about its internal affairs and not about its reputation on the world stage.
It's also notable that NJ's post, and others, have not even attempted to answer the transparent contradiction between Johnson's position in the House yesterday, and between the Government's submission to the NI Affairs Committee. They say the exact opposite of each other. Johnson can, perhaps, be excused for misunderstanding the implications of his own "oven-ready" deal at the time he signed it (although that obviously invites the acusation of incompetence); but he can't be excused for making two diametrically opposed statements on the same day at the same time. Either the EU is acting in good faith or it is not. If it is not, then Johnson should demonstrate this with evidence, because in those circumstances the UK would be entitled to raise a grievance under International Law. If the EU *is* acting in good faith, then the UK's position becomes even more hypocritical and indefensible.
Of course it matters if one party who is complaining that the UK is seeking to break "International Law" is prone to the same practices (fairly frequently) itself. People in glass houses, etc.
Throughout these "negotiations" (a misnomer if ever there was one) the EU has sought all manner of subterfuge to compel the UK to remain as a vassal state. In simple terms the UK was party to a treaty that now no longer suits its best interests. In fact it should never have been signed but that's what happens when you sup with the devil. No country should be bound by a treaty forever and they should be free to withdraw at their will. The EU will have to try another way to compel the UK to remain within its influence.
Throughout these "negotiations" (a misnomer if ever there was one) the EU has sought all manner of subterfuge to compel the UK to remain as a vassal state. In simple terms the UK was party to a treaty that now no longer suits its best interests. In fact it should never have been signed but that's what happens when you sup with the devil. No country should be bound by a treaty forever and they should be free to withdraw at their will. The EU will have to try another way to compel the UK to remain within its influence.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles84 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles91 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Crosswords228 mins ago
