Spam & Scams1 min ago
Why Are The E U S S R So Terrified?
39 Answers
https:/
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?
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?
Answers
//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...
19:31 Thu 01st Oct 2020
"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.
// 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.
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.
'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 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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
//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?
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?
Latest Posts
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News1 min ago
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
