Ave_IT wrote:signalspast wrote: As I have said I will wait until the second reading until I make a judgement. Unlike yourself who is taking hearsay the remain side and the EU as the b and end all. If and I repeat if Barnier has made the threats and they can show that there has been bad faith in the negotiations than its grounds to repudiate the whole agreement and not just try to make adjustments to it. Should they be right I doing what they are doing rhen they are trying to protect British interests which you should be hoping that they undertake.
Oh FFS! A government minister stood up in parliament in public and said we are going to break international law.
THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.
It matters not what the EU may or may not be threatening (THAT IS hearsay by the way) - regarding the deal now being negotiated. They can threaten and we can threaten whatever we like. That’s what negotiations are all about. The law is the law ……..and when you’ve signed a treaty you have to stick by it…..that’s what international law means.. You can’t just say “Oh you’re being so beastly now we’re going to break the treaty we signed before”. You simply cannot retrospectively pick and choose bits you want to stick by AFTER you’ve signed up to something. It’s a pretty bloody basic principle of any binding contract let alone law.
Yes he did and he also stated that its a small measured action to protect British interests as I said next week during the second reading I will decide who is right or wrong then. The government are going to have to justify there actions to their backbenchers so I would think lots of information will come out then. It might well be that they can't justify it but whatever has been said will be documented. IF they manage to justify it then the breach could well look a minor action that rhey have took.