We are not walking away from our liabilities we are honouring them in full. The irony is that the despicable Lisbon ratification was precisely what allowed us to Leave by invoking Article 50. Until then there was no exit. If you don't want people to exit from Treaties don't include an exit clause and then push them to invoking it.Originally Posted by Hazir
I am not certain why you direct this at me; Theresa May sending the letter with the notification as per article 50 almost made me as happy as a moderate 'kipper'. I even feel a bit sorry for het getting all sorts of flak for not mentioning Gibraltar. As if that would have stopped our side from giving Spain a veto on that. Didn't these remoaners pay any attention to the draft negotiations mandate that probably will be given to Barnier? Basically everything the British PM suggested was wiped of the table like it needed to be set all over again.
Congratulations America
If you believe no government should ever be able to bind its successors, in any situation, then it doesn't really matter whether or not a govt went against its own election manifesto in joining an international treaty. And, if my recollection of our most recent discussion is even remotely accurate, your position is indeed that even the most kosher international treaties are in practice non-binding for the purposes of international law.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I believe that Treaties are binding for as long as you abide by them. If you wish to be a party to a Treaty then abide by it and honour it. If you don't then withdraw from the Treaty by whatever exit mechanism exists if one does (as here) or by repudiating it if none does.
What I do not believe is that you should claim to be honouring a Treaty while deliberately dishonouring it.
Stop changing the goalposts. You just said you oppose any treaty that binds the successors of those who sign it. EVERY treaty does that. That's what separates a treaty from whatever is the British version of an executive agreement.
If your real problem is not having a veto as new issues come up, then you really should oppose membership in NATO (for most of its decisions), the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO (on compliance issues, where you don't even get a vote). You should also oppose treaties, like the NPT, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Genocide Convention, etc. So would you like to change the goalposts yet again, or do you think the UK should withdraw from all of its treaties?
Hope is the denial of reality
Okay look RB says a lot of objectionable things but that there was wholly unwarranted. Go to the corner and take a time out
Or to a pub
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, it was not unwarranted. First he accuses me of "changing goalposts" and then he does it himself. Next, he complains about being outvoted which is a complete and utter lie. There are countless examples of this type of asshattery.
Plus his notions about "governments should not be bound by the decisions of their predecessors" shows that he has no fucking clue at all of how international treaties work and are upheld. And this is the same guy who consistently rambles on about the great chances his country will get through the same treaties he feels countries should not feel bound by as soon as their government changes. He does not even comprehend how absurdly stupid such a notion is.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't dispute that he's guilty of all sorts of crimes and misdeeds, I'm just saying that the response--the punishment, if you will--is excessively harsh, especially in light of the fact that RB's frustrating and often misinformed views of the world are rarely grounded in malice so much as they represent legitimate philosophical positions. They may be more wrong than Trump's appreciation for his daughter's ass but not criminally so.
I just think it's good to maintain a reasonable level of anger and vitriol. I mean, if you're this pissed off about his views on international law, what are you going to say when he says something even more heinous, like advocating for blanket surveillance of Pakistanis or claiming that the UK is going to win the World Cup?
Most importantly, just think about what this does to you and your well-being. It can't be good. Just give it some consideration. You might have no regard for RB's feelings but it's prudent to look after yourself.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's not what I said.
It may verge on sophistry but he didn't say he opposed all treaties, only that he was opposed to the notion that international treaties agreed to by one government also bind subsequent governments. In other words, he likes NATO and doesn't want to leave it, but feels that the UK doesn't have to abide by the treaty if it doesn't want to.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Exactly!
If the circumstances arise where we deem it necessary to quit NATO then we reserve that right.
Since I believe we can quit Treaties when we want to, I don't find them binding indefinitely so don't oppose them. Loki completely mangled his interpretation of my oft stated thinking by substituting his belief that Treaties are binding in perpetuity for my one.
In his defense, Loki firmly cleaves to the idea that you can't actually leave a treaty unless it has an exit mechanism because other countries would disapprove (even if they would also disapprove of you using an existing exit mechanism) because disapproval makes it physically and philosophically impossible.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
LOL well said.
If Donald Trump were to agree a Treaty with Putin that gave Russia the ability to change American domestic legislation, gave Russia oversight over the CIA, forbid many Democrat policies from becoming the law etc . . . And managed to ram that three Congress then Loki would you want to repeal that Treaty or be like "that's international law now so we have to do this forever".
If that was followed by landslide victories for the Democrats and a crushing humiliation for the GOP then should the GOP Russia treaty be untouchable?
So many problems in one sentence. Donald Trump can't ratify treaties. So he's free to sign whatever he wants with Putin; Congress wouldn't ratify it. Furthermore, treaties can't violate the US Constitution. This one certainly would. Meanwhile, the Lisbon Treaty was signed through all the legal and constitutional mechanisms that exist in Britain. Try again.
Rand, remind me why any country should sign a treaty with the UK if the UK has no intention of following treaties the second it becomes inconvenient?
Hope is the denial of reality
I knew you'd jump on the ratification hence why I'd already edited that in that it was able to be rammed through Congress. The Lisbon Treaty was signed and ratified by the government of the day and is being exited by a future government under the provisions the original one ratified. The exit clause is there just like NATO already has an exit clause too.
Interesting that you'd think the Treaty would violate the Constitution as while I was trying to be deliberately outrageous in that Treaty some of those provisos are what we are subjected to as EU members.
Countries should sign Treaties with the UK on the understanding it will be honoured for as long as all parties find it convenient. What's so objectionable to that? Other parties are welcome to exercise exit clauses too.
In order to safeguard their access to tea and jam. Vital national interest.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Randblade, even though you are right in principle, you clearly have no idea how treates work in practise. Even your adamant claims that any high contracting party has the right to withdraw from a treaty is correct. But that is subject to rules either set in the treaty itself or in the Vienna Treaty Convention. Meaning that even getting out of the deal is subject to agreements entered into by previous governments. Disregarding those rules would make the UK a party with which one can not do deals of any kind.
Congratulations America
I have no qualms with accepting temporary transitions or notice periods as being part and parcel of sound governance. The point is for the long term that once the Eg 1 year (NATO) or 2 year (Lisbon) period is over then unless otherwise negotiated the Treaty ends.
If you want to be absolutely literal then it isn't possible to pass a new statute in a single day so therefore in the time it takes to change the law the prior government is of course still bound. The principle never meant the law can be changed overnight, just that it can if necessary be changed ultimately.
Don't forget that even if you can leave treaties whenever hoog want, doing so will make it harder to reach new deals because the other party will be less confident you'll stay in.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Yes that's politics.
giant rolleyes
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
And, as always, inaccurate.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nope. In fact, that was Loki's reaction even to the idea that Bush Jr. might withdraw the signature from the Kyoto Treaty, something which Clinton had never even bothered to submit to Congress because the Senate had made it clear they would reject the treaty by 98-0. It's quite amazing, really, the number of actions states undertake which Loki declared were flatly impossible because no one would ever trust that state again. He has a very bad habit of conflating whether a state action is feasible with whether he considers it a good idea based on his personal political interests and desires.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The status of the USA as a dependable high contracting party was damaged though by Kyoto. Not because it didn't ratify Kyoto, but because it never had an intention to make steps for ratification. It's the difference between not being able to ratify according to your own constitutional rules (which is a legitimate reason to withhold ratification) and having no intention to ratify to start with (which basically makes you a cheat).
Now, nobody will forget that the US is the pre-eminent power in the world. But the fact that Kyoto still hasn't been forgotten also tells us something about the extent to which other high contracting parties trust the US.
Congratulations America
The idea that Loki 2017 even remembers what Loki ~2001 said about Kyoto is ludicrous. I guess I should be impressed that you do though.
I don't think neither IL nor treaties are sacred. Countries can and do ignore both. But there's a cost to ignoring IL, and there's an even bigger cost to outright saying that you have no intention of following a treaty the second it leads to any outcome you dislike (which is very different to saying that you really, really don't like a specific treaty).
On an unrelated note, this is generally a credible source:
Twitter Link
Last edited by Loki; 04-02-2017 at 10:35 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Irrelevant to the content of your post. Asserting that lying is wrong isn't the same as saying that lying is impossible. Saying that it's wrong or dangerous to renege on a deal isn't the same as saying that it's impossible. Recognizing that it's illegal, wrong and dangerous to break the law isn't the same as saying that breaking the law is impossible. And so on. If the point you're actually trying to make is that Loki's critical views on violations of treaties and other forms of international law are wrong or exaggerated then that's another--and more complex--matter that may be interesting to examine from different angles. Certainly more interesting than third-rate snark.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Except that Loki keeps saying things are impossible or illegal when they are at worse only inadvisable.
Loki never said impossible. And breaking a treaty is illegal...
Hope is the denial of reality
He didn't say it was wrong or dangerous (though that was why he was objecting) he was saying it couldn't be done.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote