Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

What are they over riding?

Aspects of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, negotiated by Johnson, hailed by him at the time as a tremendous victory against the odds, signed by him and lodged with the UN as a legally binding international agreement. The governments most senior legal civil servant and one sitting Tory MP have all ready resigned over the issue.

Still it is apparently all ok, because they are only attempting to pass a national bill that specifically seeks to unilaterally override an existing international agreement signed a mere 8 months ago, 'a little bit'.

Teenage girl to her father - hey dad chill out, I am only a little bit pregnant.

[Paphitis]

What are they over riding?

Aspects of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, negotiated by Johnson, hailed by him at the time as a tremendous victory against the odds, signed by him and lodged with the UN as a legally binding international agreement. The governments most senior legal civil servant and one sitting Tory MP have all ready resigned over the issue.

Still it is apparently all ok, because they are only attempting to pass a national bill that specifically seeks to unilaterally override an existing international agreement signed a mere 8 months ago, 'a little bit'.

Teenage girl to her father - hey dad chill out, I am only a little bit pregnant.

Any EU treaties no longer apply since the UK is withdrawing.

The UK can tear them up and follow international law as per the requirements of the UN, UNCLOS, and ICAO. Any agreements under the deplorable duress placed upon the UK Government are null and void. The EU isn’t a country of the UN either. It’s just a trade block.

I agree with the UK.

We are in a similar process with Chy-na. All the Yellow Brick Road treaties are been shredded. Bye bye Chy-na and Phuck off forever!

It’s actually good seeing countries stand up for the interests of the people.

[erolz66]

It’s actually good seeing countries stand up for the interests of the people.

I guess then that you support and think it is a good thing that Turkey is standing up for the interests of its people against an international law it did NOT sign, given that it is good for countries to do so against treaties they have signed. I'll let Erdogan know of your support, I am sure he will welcome it.

[Paphitis]

It’s actually good seeing countries stand up for the interests of the people.

I guess then that you support and think it is a good thing that Turkey is standing up for the interests of its people against an international law it did NOT sign, given that it is good for countries to do so against treaties they have signed. I'll let Erdogan know of your support, I am sure he will welcome it.

No Turkey is trying to steal from Greece by forcing Greece to accept a fair accompli against UNCLOS.

The UK isn’t trying to steal anything from the EU. It’s just asserting itself in accordance with international law and what is right rather than take advantage like the EU is.

In the end, the sovereign people of the UK have spoken, and the EU will have to negotiate on equal terms in a fair and just manner.

In the end, the UK has a much higher rank than the EU as it’s sovereign just like Turkey is sovereign. The EU is nothing but a trade entity.

The UK has also signed a Treaty with NATO but if let’s say it wishes to withdraw from NATO, then that treaty no longer applies to Britain as it wants to depart from what is a Defence Treaty or Pact. NATO isn’t a sovereign either.

If the UK would want to leave NATO, then that would be a matter for the UK and it’s people. The UK would neither be stealing or breaking any laws in doing so.

It’s a new type of invasion.

[erolz66]

It’s actually good seeing countries stand up for the interests of the people.

I guess then that you support and think it is a good thing that Turkey is standing up for the interests of its people against an international law it did NOT sign, given that it is good for countries to do so against treaties they have signed. I'll let Erdogan know of your support, I am sure he will welcome it.

No Turkey is trying to steal from Greece by forcing Greece to accept a fair accompli against UNCLOS.

An international treaty Turkey did NOT sign up to.

The UK isn’t trying to steal anything from the EU.

Yes it is. It is seeking to steal the sovereign rights of the 27 nations that make up the EU to be able to protect the integrity of their internal market whilst abiding by the internationally agreed, signed, ratified and recognised good Friday agreement.

It’s just asserting itself in accordance with international law and what is right rather than take advantage like the EU is.

Seeking to pass a national bill that explicitly states it unilaterally amends and overrides previous agreed and signed treaties with third parties is not 'in accordance with international law'. It is the absolute antithesis of it at every level, conceptually, in principle and in in practice. Which is why the UK's most senior legal civil servant resigned when this was proposed by the government.

In the end, the sovereign people of the UK have spoken, and the EU will have to negotiate on equal terms in a fair and just manner.

That is exactly what they did and it was Johnson who hailed this agreement as a great victory. Now the UK is proposing to unilaterally amend that agreement. Not 'leave it' but amend it.

In the end, the UK has a much higher rank than the EU as it’s sovereign just like Turkey is sovereign. The EU is nothing but a trade entity.

No it is a political union of 27 sovereign nations.

The UK has also signed a Treaty with NATO but if let’s say it wishes to withdraw from NATO, then that treaty no longer applies to Britain as it wants to depart from what is a Defence Treaty or Pact. NATO isn’t a sovereign either.

The UK is not proposing a bill to cancel its participation in the withdrawal agreement. It is proposing one that seeks to unilaterally change the terms of that agreement whilst expecting those unilateral changes to be recognised internationally as valid.

Discussion with you Paphitis almost always ends up feeling to me like 'shooting fish in a barrel'. Amusing for short periods perhaps but ultimately not very satisfying.

[Paphitis]

It doesn’t matter if Turkey signed up to it or not. It’s the international norm.

Chy-na is the other country that hasn’t signed up to it.

But it is still held accountable and the ICJ would rule in favour of Greece and in favour of other countries surrounding the South China Sea.

And no, the UK isn’t stealing from the 27 other countries. You say they are but you don’t mention what it is they are stealing. All I know is that the EU is trying to leverage fishing rights in the UK EEZ.

The EU is not a member of the UN, or UN Security Council. The UK has no obligations to abide by anything unless it agrees to do so wrt any future trade deals.

If the UK wants out, then the EU can shove any past agreements where the moon don’t shine. And there is nothing the EU can do about it. Just like there is nothing Chy-na can do when Australia finally dissolves treaties with Chy-na on grounds of National Security. They as a sovereign country though have more rights than the EU because they can complain to the UN GA and SC but Australia will just complain about their citizens under arbitrary arrest, their political interference and conduct in the South China Sea and ignore everything.

[erolz66]

I understand you do not believe me that this proposed bill breaks international law. I wonder if you would believe UK government minister that is introducing the bill in a reply given the house of commons ? Probably not but here goes.



Jump to 1.56 min and you will see and hear the minister himself state clearly to the house

Yes it does break international law, in a very specific and limited way

Still what could the minster possibly know about it compared to you Paphitis ?

Shooting fish in a barrel.

[Paphitis]

I understand you do not believe me that this proposed bill breaks international law. I wonder if you would believe UK government minister that is introducing the bill in a reply given the house of commons ? Probably not but here goes.



Jump to 1.56 min and you will see and hear the minister himself state clearly to the house

Yes it does break international law, in a very specific and limited way

Still what could the minster possibly know about it compared to you Paphitis ?

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh right. So it’s in regards to the BREXIT Deal, on whether Britain can go for a hard BREXIT.

So we are back to that yet again.

No I do not believe the UK will be breaking international law if there are no Free Trade Deals or an amicable departure from the EU for the benefit of all involved. Sounds to me like the EU are trying to play the same games as the last 4 years.

No I completely support Britain’s right as a sovereign State to go for hard BREXIT. The mandate from the people of Britain is crystal clear and hard BREXIT will always be on the table to allow Britain to negotiate its divorce and achieve the best result for its people.

No I do not believe it’s a treaty. I do not believe the EU has any right to handcuff Britain’s hands again.

If the EU is smart, they would desist from playing any games against the Sovereign UK, or it will have no choice at all but to go for hard BREXIT.

Now the UK has Tony Abbott, the UK will get free trade deals with India. A market of 1.3 billion people. The tables turned round a long time ago.

I think it’s now time for the EU to accept Britain’s mandate and negotiate for an as soft BREXIT as possible with all free trade intact because if it doesn’t then it won’t be good for Britain or the EU. Using this as leverage to gain the upper hand against Britain is just bully tactics and if that is the game EU choose to play, then it leaves Britain with no choice. They don’t want to do it, but are being pushed by the EU.

What the EU tried to do to Britain over the last 4 years was deplorable and I as a European Citizen do not condone such belligerent behaviour against another country purely to embarrass them or take advantage. As such, I can only support the democratic wishes of the British people who made their decision in a fair and democratic ballot.

[erolz66]

Oh right. So it’s in regards to the BREXIT Deal, on whether Britain can go for a hard BREXIT.

As ever I can not be held responsible for the sheer scale of your ignorance and your seeming compulsion to parade it around publicly in this forum.

The withdrawal agreement, negotiated by Jonhson on behalf of an entirely sovereign UK, lauded by Johnson as a 'great victory' for the UK, signed by Jonhson and then lodged with the UN is a legally binding international agreement that sets out, by agreement of both parties, what will happen in the event that the UK and EU do not reach a deal by the time the transition period ends.

No I do not believe the UK will be breaking international law if ...

The question was does the bill introduced in the commons yesterday that seeks to unilateral amend some aspects of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the sovereign states acting in unity as the EU, break international law. I say it does. The NI Minister in Jonhson's government told the house of commons yesterday that it DOES break international law. You still claim that it does not. Who is being the twat here Paphitis ?

No I do not believe it’s a treaty.

Can you comprehend that whether something is a treaty or not is not defined by what you believe.

As to the rest of your rantings all I will say is blah blah blah blah.

Anyway do not worry. I am sure Guido or similar will be along before too long and give you the party line, so you can then just go 'baaahhaaa' and avoid the embarrassment of having to show you own 'thinking' here publicly

[Paphitis]

Oh right. So it’s in regards to the BREXIT Deal, on whether Britain can go for a hard BREXIT.

As ever I can not be held responsible for the sheer scale of your ignorance and your seeming compulsion to parade it around publicly in this forum.

The withdrawal agreement, negotiated by Jonhson on behalf of an entirely sovereign UK, lauded by Johnson as a 'great victory' for the UK, signed by Jonhson and then lodged with the UN is a legally binding international agreement that sets out, by agreement of both parties, what will happen in the event that the UK and EU do not reach a deal by the time the transition period ends.

No I do not believe the UK will be breaking international law if ...

The question was does the bill introduced in the commons yesterday that seeks to unilateral amend some aspects of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the sovereign states acting in unity as the EU, break international law. I say it does. The NI Minister in Jonhson's government told the house of commons yesterday that it DOES break international law. You still claim that it does not. Who is being the twat here Paphitis ?

No I do not believe it’s a treaty.

Can you comprehend that whether something is a treaty or not is not defined by what you believe.

As to the rest of your rantings all I will say is blah blah blah blah.

Anyway do not worry. I am sure Guido or similar will be along before too long and give you the party line, so you can then just go 'baaahhaaa' and avoid the embarrassment of having to show you own 'thinking' here publicly

Boris went to the people on a platform that IF necessary, Britain will BEXIT. he won in a landslide.

Boris continues to support the BREXIT Deal which stipulates that there will be some kind of FTD and soft BREXIT.

If however that does not happen, ot the EU play the same games, then BREXIT is very much in play and completely at Britain's disposal. Hard BREXIT is by no means dead.

And yeh, there are no international laws broken here. There is no international law that can hold Britain accountable for what is the sovereign right of Britain.

Even if Britain tears it to shreds, then the BREXIT deal no longer exists in so far as Britain will unilaterally BREXIT if it has to as promised to the people without any agreements with the EU whatsoever.

If the EU don't like it. then take the UK to the ICJ. But you would probably find they can't because the EU probably doesn't have any right at all to take Britain to the ICJ because it isn't even a country.

Britain is free to do what it wants with regard to Brexit. Britain does not need any deal with the EU to BREXIT. The EU should be very clear about this.

I do not believe that the agreement between Britain and the EU carries the same weight in law as a Treaty with Britain and another sovereign country like Australia.