[Politics] Brexit

[Lever]

Apologies if this has already been discussed. There is a guy on youtube, Jeff Taylor (not easy to watch as he comes across as reading from an autocue, and not very well, better than Donald Trump though ) claims he has found the loophole that Boris will use to leave with no deal.

He refers to article 51 of the Vienna convention act on treaties, which apparently Britain signed up to in 1971.

Article 51:
Coercion of a representative of state.

The expression of a states consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Just wondered if anyone can shed any light on this?
Is it real or have i fallen for some made up bullshit?
If it is real, Johnson is being coerced to act against his wishes, but he isn't being coerced in the manor that i am sure this article 51 would have been set up to protect against, i.e. Having a gun pointed at his head. He is being threatened through the legal system due to the Benn act.
He will be acting against his own wishes, but not against the wishes of parliament, so does this Article 51 carry any weight? Could it be the loophole that Johnson and his advisers are acting so smugly about when insisting we will leave on October 31st?

Don't know about that but wonder if this helps to show the PM still has some tricks up his sleeve.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nP35Vgz7z8

 

[kemptown kid]

Very few are imposed by a majority vote, and by and large I think most people in the UK would be glad they were when you look at them. Last time I looked the most recent objection UK had lost was in reducing the PPM of particulates allowable in clean air, i.e. we wanted to keep a higher level and therefore poorer air quality allowable. I am pretty sure every law passed in the HoC is objected to by some MP or other, majority voting seems fair to me, and as one of the larger nations, we have a larger say than most in the EU system.

Quite.

Far from 'taking back control', we are wilfully abandoning influence and may well find ourselves obliged to accept 'controls' over which we have no say/influence in order to strike trade deals.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Loving Norman Smith's BBC analysis. In a less BBC PC world, he'd have the top politico job

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Perhaps people don't engage with you enough, so may I ask you a straightforward and direct question?

How do you think leaving the EU will help reduce the number of Romanian and Albanian criminals in this country? Specifically, what mechanism will be used to keep them out?

It won't.
They set up here a long time ago and are now established. Cartels controlling pimps, prostitutes and drugs. They are dangerous and violent and here to stay.

 

[Baldseagull]

Apologies if this has already been discussed. There is a guy on youtube, Jeff Taylor (not easy to watch as he comes across as reading from an autocue, and not very well, better than Donald Trump though ) claims he has found the loophole that Boris will use to leave with no deal.

He refers to article 51 of the Vienna convention act on treaties, which apparently Britain signed up to in 1971.

Article 51:
Coercion of a representative of state.

The expression of a states consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of the representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Just wondered if anyone can shed any light on this?
Is it real or have i fallen for some made up bullshit?
If it is real, Johnson is being coerced to act against his wishes, but he isn't being coerced in the manor that i am sure this article 51 would have been set up to protect against, i.e. Having a gun pointed at his head. He is being threatened through the legal system due to the Benn act.
He will be acting against his own wishes, but not against the wishes of parliament, so does this Article 51 carry any weight? Could it be the loophole that Johnson and his advisers are acting so smugly about when insisting we will leave on October 31st?

In this case the representative is being coerced by the Parliament he is the representative of, and the threat is the law of the State in question. I believe the Vienna convention Article 51 does not apply in this case. It seems to me that the intention is in preventing an individual being coerced into tying a State into a treaty that the State would object to, but this is the expressed will of the State.

I do not believe there is any loophole, but if he can create the suspicion that there might be, he hopes it could persuade the EU to move, or Parliament to vote through his rehash of the deal. If there is a loophole, I don't think he would use it to actually leave without a deal, it is the threat of it he wants, not the realisation of it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I won't call you any of those things. But you do seem to be a victim of confirmation bias.

People don't need to present an argument in favor of Brexit (although they have, plenty of times), requiring that implies that we still need to debate whether it should happen.

That debate was had, then we voted. Brexit won, so actually the argument that "leaving was the result" is actually the fairly obvious, and only relevent reason why it needs to be done.

"We should remain like we should carry on living", might be your opinion, but it isn't an opinion shared by everyone. What is so difficult about the concept that you are entitled to your view and others are entitled to their views. You are basically saying,"I am 100% correct, those who disagree with me are 100% wrong". That's likely what you believe, but that isn't an argument, and it's also confusing fact with opinion.

I respect your view that we should remain in the EU. Can you respect my view that we should leave the EU? Or is that just not possible for you?

Respecting the vote.

[tweet]1183107479175155718[/tweet]

 

[Murray 17]

A post straight out of Nigel Farage's little red book of lies.

Well, I think the official figures before the Referendum were 330000 a year. I make that approximately 1000 a day, don't you?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Murray 17]

Do you mean the migrants working in the NHS, picking fruit, helping to staff care homes, working on building sites, teaching our kids... I could go on?

Well, at least 25% of them don't do any work.

Secondly, the more people who come here, the more people we need to 'service' them. It's a vicious circle.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Mellotron]

i think the trouble is not recognising that for a large proportion of leave voters "we voted for it" is reason enough.

But again there's an immediate issue with that, in that no one on earth knows what the **** "it" is.

 

[lawros left foot]

Well, at least 25% of them don't do any work.

Secondly, the more people who come here, the more people we need to 'service' them. It's a vicious circle.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

And yet, migrants contribute £2370 more to the UK economy than the average British born citizen.

Send the lazy buggers home, I say.

 

[vegster]

Well, at least 25% of them don't do any work.

Secondly, the more people who come here, the more people we need to 'service' them. It's a vicious circle.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Go up the thread and read a few hundred posts, it's been proved time and again that a huge majority ( much bigger than 52%) of them work, if they do not they are liable for deportation after a few months. So, I doubt if any come all this way to claim the pittance you get on job seekers allowance.

 

[schmunk]

Send the lazy buggers home, I say.

They are home, watching Loose Women - that's the problem...

 

[Baldseagull]

Well, at least 25% of them don't do any work.

Secondly, the more people who come here, the more people we need to 'service' them. It's a vicious circle.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I am interested in what you think happens with the 25% (without accepting any validity in that statistic) that don't do any work?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well, at least 25% of them don't do any work.

Secondly, the more people who come here, the more people we need to 'service' them. It's a vicious circle.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Where is the link with those 'facts'?

How many go home again, especially when university students are included in those figures?

 

[Goliath]

And yet, migrants contribute £2370 more to the UK economy than the average British born citizen.

Send the lazy buggers home, I say.

If they were not doing those jobs then British people would be so we don't gain anything.Infact we gain less tax because employers as we know exploit migrants and pay them less.

 

[lawros left foot]

They are home, watching Loose Women - that's the problem...

If they watch Loose Women, they deserve everything they get!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Go up the thread and read a few hundred posts, it's been proved time and again that a huge majority ( much bigger than 52%) of them work, if they do not they are liable for deportation after a few months. So, I doubt if any come all this way to claim the pittance you get on job seekers allowance.

Claiming JSA is very difficult. You need an NI number, and years of contributions. You have to prove you are actively seeking work by providing proof each week of how many job applications you have filled in, and how many interviews attended.
I wonder how many European doctors and nurses claim JSA? Since 2016 we have lost thousands of them because they've gone back.

 

[lawros left foot]

If they were not doing those jobs then British people would be so we don't gain anything.Infact we gain less tax because employers as we know exploit migrants and pay them less.

What’s your source?
The Migration Advisory Commitee calculate that the average migrant from the EEA, contributes £78,000 over their lifetime. And that is 2017 prices, so it’s obviously gone up now.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If they were not doing those jobs then British people would be so we don't gain anything.Infact we gain less tax because employers as we know exploit migrants and pay them less.

Sonia loses her job in the supermarket because everyone is now using self checkouts. She left school without a GCSE but that's ok because she can now become a nurse.
She will have to study to get her uni qualifications, claiming benefits because she isn't working, but that's ok. Two years later, she's done it, and then has to borrow £9K for uni fees over the next three years (which will never be paid back because her wages are so low) and finally three years later she's now a nurse.

In the meantime, qualified European nurses are leaving in their droves because they've been assaulted in the hospitals and told to go home. A friend who was pregnant was kicked in the stomach by a man.

 

[Goliath]

Is it wrong for a person to wish to preserve their cultureTake it 20/30 years into the future and imagine we hadn't voted leave,can you imagine the percentage of migrants in this country from the EU not even taking into account the percentage from non EU countries.How many towns and cities in the UK would have British people in the minority?

Imagine this country was poor and it was for example Poland that was rich and everyone was moving there.Do you think they would be happy?No.Would Bulgaria or Romania be happy if they were rich and everyone was moving thereNo.We are often accused of being racist by the same nations who if they were in a similar position to us would also probably vote leave.Every country is proud of its culture and heritage.Simple.