Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How Damaging Could This Be To Britain’s International Reputation?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. 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.
'We expect everybody in this country to obey the law' says Boris Johnson in parliament.
Except for himself of course, after his government's announcement of their intention to break international law, followed by the swift resignation of their top civil service legal adviser.
Another exception is required for the Tory Housing Minister Robert Jenrick, who broke the law to help a major Tory donor rip off a local council to the tune of £40 million on their lavish property development.
Another exception is obviously needed for Dominic Cummings, who famously defied the Tory government's own lockdown rules to drive to Durham and stay in the house that his family built on their land without planning permission, and which they apparently pay no Council Tax on either!
Then there was Johnson and Cummings plot to illegally suspend parliament in order to prevent democratic scrutiny of the Withdrawal Agreement (a deal that Johnson now admits he knew was nonsense from the very beginning, which is exactly why he didn't want parliament scrutinising it).
Let's not forget the Tory Home Secretary Priti Patel, who acted as an agent of a foreign state embedded within the UK government by conducting secret meetings with Israeli politicians aimed at diverting the UK foreign aid budget to the Israeli military in the illegally occupied territories!
Patel should be in jail for treason, but somehow, such is the level of absolute impunity in the Tory ranks, Johnson decided that she's a fit and proper person to run the Home Office!
Then there were Chris Grayling's extraordinary 350 million worth of Brexit ferry contracts, some of them handed out to companies that didn't even have any ferries. Not only were these contracts ludicrously absurd, they also broke competition law and forced the UK government to pay £33 million in compensation to the Channel Tunnel operators!
Before Johnson the Tories were just as lawless, with loads of their malicious and incompetent legislation ruled unlawful in the courts.
The £1,200 in unlawful tribunal fees they imposed in order to lock low-income employees out of the justice system, and prevent them from receiving compensation from their bad bosses.
Then there were Iain Duncan Smith's brazenly unlawful forced-unpaid-labour schemes, which he didn't even bother to present before parliament before enacting into law!
Once he was caught out illegally bypassing parliament to enact his nonsense legislation, he tried to retroactively change the forced-unpaid-labour rules so that they would have been lawful had they been written that way at the time. This cynical retroactive trickery was also ruled unlawful by the UK courts.
It's not like the British public don't know that the Tory party are a bunch of lawless criminals who think that laws should only ever apply to little people, not Westminster gangsters like them.
The British public knew it perfectly well, and a significant proportion of us decided that they actually want a lawless bunch of Tory criminals running the country.
When Britain becomes a pariah state, with nobody wanting to deal with us, because we're the kind of country that defies international law and even brags about it in parliament, and casually rips up legally binding international agreements within a year of signing up to them, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
We were given a choice between a honest man who is a stickler for doing things by the books, and for respecting international law, and the most egregious liar in the entire political system heading up a party of serial lawbreakers.
And we chose the liar and the lawbreakers.
Except for himself of course, after his government's announcement of their intention to break international law, followed by the swift resignation of their top civil service legal adviser.
Another exception is required for the Tory Housing Minister Robert Jenrick, who broke the law to help a major Tory donor rip off a local council to the tune of £40 million on their lavish property development.
Another exception is obviously needed for Dominic Cummings, who famously defied the Tory government's own lockdown rules to drive to Durham and stay in the house that his family built on their land without planning permission, and which they apparently pay no Council Tax on either!
Then there was Johnson and Cummings plot to illegally suspend parliament in order to prevent democratic scrutiny of the Withdrawal Agreement (a deal that Johnson now admits he knew was nonsense from the very beginning, which is exactly why he didn't want parliament scrutinising it).
Let's not forget the Tory Home Secretary Priti Patel, who acted as an agent of a foreign state embedded within the UK government by conducting secret meetings with Israeli politicians aimed at diverting the UK foreign aid budget to the Israeli military in the illegally occupied territories!
Patel should be in jail for treason, but somehow, such is the level of absolute impunity in the Tory ranks, Johnson decided that she's a fit and proper person to run the Home Office!
Then there were Chris Grayling's extraordinary 350 million worth of Brexit ferry contracts, some of them handed out to companies that didn't even have any ferries. Not only were these contracts ludicrously absurd, they also broke competition law and forced the UK government to pay £33 million in compensation to the Channel Tunnel operators!
Before Johnson the Tories were just as lawless, with loads of their malicious and incompetent legislation ruled unlawful in the courts.
The £1,200 in unlawful tribunal fees they imposed in order to lock low-income employees out of the justice system, and prevent them from receiving compensation from their bad bosses.
Then there were Iain Duncan Smith's brazenly unlawful forced-unpaid-labour schemes, which he didn't even bother to present before parliament before enacting into law!
Once he was caught out illegally bypassing parliament to enact his nonsense legislation, he tried to retroactively change the forced-unpaid-labour rules so that they would have been lawful had they been written that way at the time. This cynical retroactive trickery was also ruled unlawful by the UK courts.
It's not like the British public don't know that the Tory party are a bunch of lawless criminals who think that laws should only ever apply to little people, not Westminster gangsters like them.
The British public knew it perfectly well, and a significant proportion of us decided that they actually want a lawless bunch of Tory criminals running the country.
When Britain becomes a pariah state, with nobody wanting to deal with us, because we're the kind of country that defies international law and even brags about it in parliament, and casually rips up legally binding international agreements within a year of signing up to them, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
We were given a choice between a honest man who is a stickler for doing things by the books, and for respecting international law, and the most egregious liar in the entire political system heading up a party of serial lawbreakers.
And we chose the liar and the lawbreakers.
//We were given a choice between a honest man who is a stickler for doing things by the books, and for respecting international law, and the most egregious liar in the entire political system heading up a party of serial lawbreakers.
\\
If I remember correctly the 'honest man' to whom you refer was one J Corbyn. Pardon me while I split my sides.
\\
If I remember correctly the 'honest man' to whom you refer was one J Corbyn. Pardon me while I split my sides.
history will show - - -
things cd have been conducted much better
I think May conceded things in good faith and all that happened is that they wanted more on the next round ....
Trump abrogated some treaty and no one said boo!
I think there has been bad faith on both sides - the one I heard was that Barnier who I dont regard as that bright said
delay too much and you wont eat !
and this is designed to stop that
[I have been involved in bad faith negotiations and the next time you cant get anyone to do anything because they think they are going to get shafted again, if they concede in good will] - something which is totally predictable and I warned them about ....
( I retired)
Boris is justified in what he is going
Good knows why the mandarin felt he had to go.
in 1973 the opposition said they would indemnify the Clay Cross Councillors if they disobeyed legislation
and no civil servant committed hara kiri
the new attorney general went - I cant remember his name(*)
here is some blah-blah in the commons about it
https:/
(*) on the obvious grounds that no legislator to be elected should say "oh but dont obey those laws obnly obey mine!"
things cd have been conducted much better
I think May conceded things in good faith and all that happened is that they wanted more on the next round ....
Trump abrogated some treaty and no one said boo!
I think there has been bad faith on both sides - the one I heard was that Barnier who I dont regard as that bright said
delay too much and you wont eat !
and this is designed to stop that
[I have been involved in bad faith negotiations and the next time you cant get anyone to do anything because they think they are going to get shafted again, if they concede in good will] - something which is totally predictable and I warned them about ....
( I retired)
Boris is justified in what he is going
Good knows why the mandarin felt he had to go.
in 1973 the opposition said they would indemnify the Clay Cross Councillors if they disobeyed legislation
and no civil servant committed hara kiri
the new attorney general went - I cant remember his name(*)
here is some blah-blah in the commons about it
https:/
(*) on the obvious grounds that no legislator to be elected should say "oh but dont obey those laws obnly obey mine!"
Re OP - not a lot. 'Perfidious Albion' and all that. It's all miniscule. Article 38 exists in the treaty, it's just being given more precedence. Besides, the W.Ag. was entered into as a precursor to a Free Trade Treaty, wasn't it and to buy time? If no such treaty is forthcoming (which looks likely) then it has no validity, surely?
//How Damaging Could This Be To Britain’s International Reputation?//
Not much. Europe hates us anyway, so this won't change that. As regards the rest of the world I don't think our reputation is particularly great at the moment, so this won't make things much worse.
All countries renege on deals when it suits them and everyone knows that.
Not much. Europe hates us anyway, so this won't change that. As regards the rest of the world I don't think our reputation is particularly great at the moment, so this won't make things much worse.
All countries renege on deals when it suits them and everyone knows that.
“ Besides, the W.Ag. was entered into as a precursor to a Free Trade Treaty, wasn't it and to buy time? If no such treaty is forthcoming (which looks likely) then it has no validity, surely?”
On the contrary, the bill relates in part to doing things which would apply in the event of there not being a trade deal, and in part to things which which still apply (checks on goods and services between GB and NI) regardless of a trade deal.
Either way, the Withdrawal Agreement is and would still be valid.
So
On the contrary, the bill relates in part to doing things which would apply in the event of there not being a trade deal, and in part to things which which still apply (checks on goods and services between GB and NI) regardless of a trade deal.
Either way, the Withdrawal Agreement is and would still be valid.
So
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.