Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
17250 messages in 761 discussions
Latest Sep-28 by CamGeary
Latest Sep-27 by ElDotardo
Latest Sep-8 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-7 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-2 by D Finkle (mahjong54)
4885 messages in 208 discussions
Latest 12/30/21 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Sep-26 by PTG (anotherPTG)
744 messages in 13 discussions
Latest Sep-7 by ElDotardo
Di (amina046) said:
"the British government says would be prepared to break the terms of an international treaty."
It's a negotiating tactic. If there's a deal with the EU, it won't happen. If the EU refuses a deal and seeks to split NI off from the rest of UK, then we will unilaterally nullify that part of the treaty. Hopefully it won't be necessary.
Or perhaps I ought to say, I hope it's a negotiating tactic, because not honouring a treaty is something we should not do and I would be surprised if there's no attempt to overthrow Johnson if he carries on with that policy.
"The European Union stepped up planning for a "no-deal" Brexit on Friday after Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government refused to revoke a plan to break the divorce treaty that Brussels says will sink four years of talks."
I don't think we should renege on a treaty that we've freely made. However I suspect this is games playing to try and move the negotiations forward on fisheries and subsidies. I hope so anyway.
The reason seems to be that the Gov has realised that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it would be possible for the EU to split Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK by interpreting the Treaty in a way that was not envisaged by the UK when it was signed.
Obviously, we can't allow that to happen.
I expect the EU to give assurances and for the Gov to withdraw the Bill. However, I don't know that will happen.
The whole thing seems kinda' weird from here, considering that this non-binding referendum split pretty much 50-50.
It's a little hard to understand how they ended up in such a bind.
"The whole thing seems kinda' weird from here, considering that this non-binding referendum split pretty much 50-50."
Any majority was enough for a decision. Blame the Gov of the time which was confident of winning. Of course there were many who said it's non-binding and can be ignored. Subsequent elections showed it couldn't be ignored and leavers became the majority in parliament.
adwil said...Of course there were many who said it's non-binding and can be ignored. Subsequent elections showed it couldn't be ignored and leavers became the majority in parliament.
Well, a non-binding referendum can't be ignored if politicians decide to put themselves in a bind, I suppose.
Do you think that they will hold a non-binding referendum on whether or not to follow International Law?