Is that the best excuse for breaking international law you can come up with? A clip of Barnier chatting from over a year ago and saying what exactly? That the EU would try and use one of the most obvious and stupid self-contradictions in the Brexit fantasy as leverage over the UK. Well blow me down – who’d have thought it? I do vaguely remember when this surfaced and causing the Daily Mail to froth at the mouth in indignation but the rest of the world completely ignoring it. Maybe nobody bothered showing Boris and that’s why he signed a treaty six months later that he now tells the world he’s going to break? Really?
I’ll give the only reason I can come up with and does have more than a shred of plausibility:-
Boris knew full well what he was doing when he agreed the WA with the EU. He was getting himself out of a short term fix by agreeing to what Theresa May had basically rejected about 18 months previously. But he could dress it up as an “excellent deal” that super-Boris had got in just a few weeks then go to the electorate claiming he could “Get Brexit done” with an “oven-ready” agreement. He lied. He knew full well it was just kicking the can down the road for nearly a year and then he’d try to play hard-ball. He’d threaten to break the agreement unless they give us what he tells them. He’d show them he doesn’t give a stuff about inconvenient things like the law or the truth - just like his mate Donald told him he should.
What about the Irish border or the GF agreement though? “Pah! Stuff of nonsense. We’ll sort something out. We’ve got clever people ain’t we? They’ll come up with some techy stuff ….. it’ll work out just fine, don’t you worry! Then we’ll just tell the world we’re here to do super-duper deals and you don’t need to bother too much about all those pesky details the bloody Europeans wet themselves over. All that ‘green’ nonsense, or food hygiene, or animal welfare, or health and safety crap, or workers rights blah-blah-blah…..…. Just watch. They’ll all come running to us…..and the EU, they’ll be a bit miffed for sure but they’ll get over it because they can’t manage without us. Isn’t that right Dom?”
My very first statement on the subject was I would wait till the second reading basically until i made.my mind up instead of being judge and jury before hearing the rationale etc behind it.
Now the video is not hearsay it shows Barnier planning to use Ireland as a tool in the negotiations. His words strategic and tactical which using ireland for future negotiations isolating ireland and not closing negotiations. Now I hadnt seen that video till the other night when it was forwarded to me on wattsapp however with Frost laying out the threats that the EU have made it becomes obvious the government has to act to protect the UK interests. These threats were confirmed on newsnight last night when the EU rep stated of course we will block stuff coming in if there is no deal.
Okay I watched the second reading last night on BBC Parliament and to be honest not much evidence came out and basically it was divided down leave and remain lines. There was various examples where the EU have broken international laws and depending on what side you took the enforcing or breaking of the good Friday agreement.
Good Friday agreement just my thoughts there are two sides to this agreement and the remain side twnd to take southern ireland and catholics side with them remaining in the eu however if the eu implemented things as they are threatening it would cause the Irish troubles to return. Remember history it wasn't the ira that started the troubles but the uvf with British troops being sent in to protect the catholics they still hold there orange order parades etc and if they feel threatened the troubles start again.
The second point that was made whilst the act brings in the tools to break the international law the actual act does not break the law. It just gives the government the tools to do it.
Its become obvious that the government had to do something to protect uk interests and the act is a safety net. If the objectors can tell me an alternative I will be pleased to hear it, but at the moment I consider the act is a necessity with an amendment. I dont like ministers making the decision to breach the international law and consider it should go back to parliament to take that decision. As oer the Bob Greene amemdment