So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woody2]

1 hour ago, mojomonkey said:

Don't all member states have to agree to any extension?

yes.....

italy could be fun........

[woody2]

labour mp said on the beeb they will now back the wa.........

wtf- either trying to get a ge or they didn't understand the difference between the wa and future deal.....

most properly both......

[Max Power]

3 minutes ago, woody2 said:

labour mp said on the beeb they will now back the wa.........

wtf- either trying to get a ge or they didn't understand the difference between the wa and future deal.....

most properly both......

Me neither?

[TheTeapot]

What is Farage up to then?

 

[woolley]

3 hours ago, Cambon said:

What a bunch of over educated half wits the uk government is. Where is Guy Falkes when you need him? 

 

Fawkes.

[Rushen Spy]

22 minutes ago, woolley said:

Fawkes.

Also known as Guido. I suspect he would have been a Remainer given that he tried to set up continental rule over Britain by blowing up parliament (and with it any semblance of national representative democracy) as a prelude to a Spanish invasion of Britain and the setting up of a Roman Catholic puppet dictatorship taking orders from Madrid and Rome.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Rushen Spy

[woolley]

28 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

Also known as Guido. I suspect he would have been a Remainer given that he tried to set up continental rule over Britain by blowing up parliament (and with it any semblance of national representative democracy) as a prelude to a Spanish invasion of Britain and the setting up of a Roman Catholic puppet dictatorship taking orders from Madrid and Rome.

Something like the EU "ever closer union" then. It strikes me that the UK is not leaving anything. It wants a free trade deal with Europe now. Precisely what we joined in 1973. It's the "Common Market" that has left us having transformed itself into something far more sinister.

[Barrie Stevens]

2 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

Also known as Guido. I suspect he would have been a Remainer given that he tried to set up continental rule over Britain by blowing up parliament (and with it any semblance of national representative democracy) as a prelude to a Spanish invasion of Britain and the setting up of a Roman Catholic puppet dictatorship taking orders from Madrid and Rome.

He killed himself. Five feet six when they started six feet two when they finished. Then he jumped.

[Barrie Stevens]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Something like the EU "ever closer union" then. It strikes me that the UK is not leaving anything. It wants a free trade deal with Europe now. Precisely what we joined in 1973. It's the "Common Market" that has left us having transformed itself into something far more sinister.

This is true old spy that you are. However, we did have a hand in the transformation..

[Freggyragh]

4 hours ago, Barrie Stevens said:

He killed himself. Five feet six when they started six feet two when they finished. Then he jumped.

He was a religious fanatic. He hated James I of England (a dictatorial tyrant if ever there was one) and wanted him and his oldest son Henry dead and replaced by his daughter Elizabeth, who they hoped could be raised Catholic. He was very anti-Scottish and resented England having a Scottish Presbyterian king, but doesn’t seem to have wanted to break up the brand new United Kingdom, just to ensure that the U.K. had a monarch who was English and Catholic. 

The aims of gunpowder plot wasn’t anything to setting up continental rule over the U.K. It wasn’t about tariffs (which were low and only intended for raising royal revenues, not protecting sectors of the economy). It wasn’t about laws, trading standards or regulations, which varied from region to region and didn’t come close to It any kind of codification until the Napoleonic era. It wasn’t about sovereignty and the Pope was not the political leader of Europe by this point, just another player in European power games (eg, 85 years later the Pope backed the Protestant side in the Glorious Revolution.) The gunpowder plot was motivated by religion, not politics. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Freggyragh

[Freggyragh]

Now Parliament says they don’t want no deal, the choices left are:

1. Bad deal. NI’s economy to be run by the RoI and not Westminster indefinitely. £39B bill. No agencies, no U.K. EU employees, no say, no influence, no Erasmus, no Galileo, no Euratom, etc. A deal so bad most brexiter MPs have already rejected it twice. Could lead to a second referendum in Scotland. 

Or, 

2. Remain. 

Or,

3. Beg for a short extension that will likely be rejected. 

Or, 

4. Beg for a longer extension that will probably only be accepted if there’s another referendum. 

Celtic nationalists like Woolley will obviously be in favour of the first option. No deal zealots like Woody will probably be hoping for the third option to succeed and then hope to overturn the  no deal rejection. 

I don’t like option 1 because I don’t want Scotland and England and Wales to break up. I don’t like option 2 because, even though leave cheated and were almost definitely backed by Russia, had no plans and their ludicrous claims about trade deals hadn’t been tested, they won. I don’t like 3. because it would be humiliating and in all probability a waste of time. I don’t like 4 because the uncertainty will drag on. If I had to choose now though, I’d probably go for either 1, or 4. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Freggyragh

[manxman1980]

16 hours ago, woody2 said:

art.60.....which i mentioned some weeks back.....

*cough*  article 62 *cough*

[woody2]

47 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

*cough*  article 62 *cough*

art.60 is what was said by jrm in parliament and what cox gave his advice on........

[manxman1980]

55 minutes ago, woody2 said:

art.60 is what was said by jrm in parliament and what cox gave his advice on........

Sorry but you are wrong;

Article 60:  Termination or Suspension of the Operation of a Treaty as a Consequence of its Breach.

Article: 62:  Fundamental Change in Circumstances

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 1155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf

Also the question that JRM asked was;

"I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about our being stuck in the backstop. Further to my question earlier, I understand that the Attorney General has been able to extend his advice on how article 62 of the Vienna convention could be used. Would my right hon. Friend be able to confirm that?"

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset 

See what happens if you do some research and post sources?

[woody2]

3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Sorry but you are wrong;

Article 60:  Termination or Suspension of the Operation of a Treaty as a Consequence of its Breach.

Article: 62:  Fundamental Change in Circumstances

https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 1155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf

Also the question that JRM asked was;

"I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on the point about our being stuck in the backstop. Further to my question earlier, I understand that the Attorney General has been able to extend his advice on how article 62 of the Vienna convention could be used. Would my right hon. Friend be able to confirm that?"

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24926/jacob_rees-mogg/north_east_somerset 

See what happens if you do some research and post sources?

jrm raised art.60 first.......he has since raised art.62......

get your facts right......

Quote

Article 60 - Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

(a)

the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either:

(i)

 in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

(ii)

 as between all the parties;

(b)    

a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;

(c)

any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

(a)

a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or

(b)

the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against persons protected by such treaties.

[...]

Article 62 - Fundamental change of circumstances

1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a)

the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

(b)

the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

(a)

if the treaty establishes a boundary; or

(b)

if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.