UK legal head resigns

[flash2015]

Is that really a contradiction though? I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it doesn't have the power it once had. The US on the other hand believes it is so powerful it can ignore what rules it doesn't like.

[Jamiet99uk]

Absurd, stupid theatrics that makes the UK look awful on the international stage.

Do you think the rest of the world really gives a damn? There's a remarkable peace of doublethink from certain British left wing political enthusiasts who claim both that the UK has declined to international insignificance, and also that the entire world is waiting with baited breath to see whether we might consider breaching some of the minutiae of trade law.

It will never be implemented, there will be a deal, and this will be a footnote of history.

The matter has attracted significant international attention, particularly in the United States.

[Octavious]

The matter has attracted significant international attention, particularly in the United States.

Yup, by politicians who want to hoover up whatever credit is available for saying no to something they know isn't going to happen. In a similar vein I will now command the Sun to rise tomorrow and insist that if the night hasn't packed its bags and left in 12 hours time I'll nut it.

Vote Octavious for a tough no nonsense stance against the dark.

[Octavious]

Is that really a contradiction though? I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it doesn't have the power it once had. The US on the other hand believes it is so powerful it can ignore what rules it doesn't like.

When was it that the UK had all of this power, Flash? At the height of the Empire we barely had the strength to win the Boer War, which was a clash between the full force of Imperial might and a coalition of angry Dutch farmers. Imperial dominance was built with smoke and mirrors, and depended on no-one actually challenging it. As soon as they did it crumbled. Aside from nukes we've had no real strength since the second world war, and that's assuming the nukes actually exist.

[flash2015]

Is that really a contradiction though? I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it doesn't have the power it once had. The US on the other hand believes it is so powerful it can ignore what rules it doesn't like.

When was it that the UK had all of this power, Flash? At the height of the Empire we barely had the strength to win the Boer War, which was a clash between the full force of Imperial might and a coalition of angry Dutch farmers. Imperial dominance was built with smoke and mirrors, and depended on no-one actually challenging it. As soon as they did it crumbled. Aside from nukes we've had no real strength since the second world war, and that's assuming the nukes actually exist.

Before it lost its empire? When it could call up resources from the colonies (e.g. like how it could call up troops from India and Australia in WW1)?

It is weird you fixated on that...when that is a side note to my real point - that it cares about what other countries think because it is weak, not because it is strong.

[Octavious]

Before it lost its empire?

Did you completely ignore the Boer War comment, or simply not understand it?

But no matter. My argument is that the strength of the UK has been largely unchanged for half a century. Britain's lack of power has been painfully obvious since the Suez crisis of the 1950s.

[Jamiet99uk]

The matter has attracted significant international attention, particularly in the United States.

Yup, by politicians who want to hoover up whatever credit is available for saying no to something they know isn't going to happen. In a similar vein I will now command the Sun to rise tomorrow and insist that if the night hasn't packed its bags and left in 12 hours time I'll nut it.

Vote Octavious for a tough no nonsense stance against the dark.

You should presumably know whether the sun will rise or not, since you behave as if you think it shines out of your arse.

[flash2015]

Before it lost its empire?

Did you completely ignore the Boer War comment, or simply not understand it?

But no matter. My argument is that the strength of the UK has been largely unchanged for half a century. Britain's lack of power has been painfully obvious since the Suez crisis of the 1950s.

You asked me when I thought it was stronger and I answered. But again this is sort of irrelevant to the real point I was trying to make...which you don't appear to have responded to.

[Octavious]

You asked me when I thought it was stronger and I answered. But again this is sort of irrelevant to the real point I was trying to make...which you don't appear to have responded to.

It what sense have I not responded? You suggested that the UK has to pay more attention to foreign governments because it doesn't have the power it once had. I disagreed on the basis that we have had very little power for some time, so the idea that there's been some recent reduction that has made a significant impact simply isn't true. That is a response. You may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it exists.

[Octavious]

You should presumably know whether the sun will rise or not, since you behave as if you think it shines out of your arse.

If you find my posts so objectionable feel free to add me to your foes list and you'll never have to read them again. If you're worried about denying me the joy of experiencing your erudite wit, I assure you I'll get over it

[orathaic]

I'm not sure if it is what Oct was talking about, but an amendment proposed by Tory backbenchers has been adopted by the govt and now (since yesterday according to BBC) requires a vote in Parliament to break international law.

Still a pretty messed up position to put forward internationally. 'we will only violate international law, when we decide we want to...' is not much of a change from 'when our cabinet decides it wants to', at least not while the govt has an 80 seat majority.

[Octavious]

It isn't much of a change, no, but it is also no different to the status quo of every government who are all quite capable of breaking international law if they want to, in much the same way you or I can break the law if we want to.

[Octavious]

On a wider issue of international law, how sacrosanct is it? To bring up an example the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons states:

Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery

Which of the nuclear weapons states are sticking to this, would you say?

Germany arguably broke international law when its courts rejected the European Central Bank bond scheme. China and Russia break international law every 5 minutes with assassinations and re-education camps and stealing other people's countries, which seem clearly to be of a far more sinister nature.

[orathaic]

No, it is different, it is a notification in written law, of the Westminster's intent.

Most countries sign international agreement with the explicit intent to follow them (or at least that is what they want other countries to believe, whether other countries believe it or not is a separate matter, cf: Iran Nuclear deal, as an example).

As to the nuclear npt, since the signing of the treaty the vast majority of nuclear weapons (specifically the massive stockpiles held by the US and USSR) have indeed been liquidated. The intention was to limit nuclear weapons proliferation, and it has come with mixed results. But both the US and USSR (now Russia, as per international law on successor states) intended to prevent proliferation and acted in good faith on those intentions.

What distinction there is between countries whose violations result in the UN security Council sanctioning them (as in the example of Iran) and those who merely risk losing trust and respect is a matter of failings of international justice and security.

[orathaic]

In Europe we have international courts which the UK is largely trying to escape from (in the general case, the US has avoided having their troops being subject to international laws against war crimes...)

China's atrocious treatment of their Muslim minority (not to mention the Tibetan situation) is what they consider internal. But since all the other UN security Council members have historic 'internal' matters, none of them are really interested in pushing the issue. (cf: US - Hawaii and Puerto Rico, UK - Gibraltar, the Channel Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda... France - Réunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Russia... Yeah, Crimea, South Ossetia, Siberia...)

[Octavious]

No, it is different, it is a notification in written law, of the Westminster's intent.

Westminster has made it clear that its intent is not to break the law. It does fully intend to follow it, and I'll be extremely surprised if it doesn't.

As for the nuclear treaty, the intent was to prevent new nations acquiring nukes and existing nuclear powers to disarm. In both aims it has failed. Russia and China both have more advanced weapons systems than at any stage in history. Sure, there are fewer warheads, but that's akin to counting the number of swords in the British army and concluding it's far less deadly now than 500 years ago.

I'm curious what your mention of the Channel Islands refers to. It has been rather some time since the Duchy of Normandy conquered England, and although very little of the Duchy aside from the Channel Islands remains I don't see any desire from England to insist on its independence from them.

[flash2015]

You asked me when I thought it was stronger and I answered. But again this is sort of irrelevant to the real point I was trying to make...which you don't appear to have responded to.

It what sense have I not responded? You suggested that the UK has to pay more attention to foreign governments because it doesn't have the power it once had. I disagreed on the basis that we have had very little power for some time, so the idea that there's been some recent reduction that has made a significant impact simply isn't true. That is a response. You may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it exists.

Did you not read? My point was that countries that are weak need to worry about what other countries think, strong countries can do what they like. I wasn't arguing that ONLY countries that were once strong and now weak have to care what others think.

Instead you sidetrack the argument into a discussion about whether the UK was ever strong. I am sure that is an interesting argument on its own and could be its own thread (following your argument, is the US weak because it lost in Vietnam? Even if you say the UK was never very strong, do you really believe it is of equivalent strength to when it still had its colonies?)...but again largely irrelevant to the point I was making.

I point this out again because you called Jamie's concerns specifically "left wing doublethink" as a substitute for an argument. Coming from Australia (another relatively weak country) I see similar concerns about how we will be seen by the world which cross the political spectrum...and I compare it with my experience in the US where they largely don't care what anyone thinks. They are valid concerns, I just don't believe Boris will really unilaterally go through with it.

[Octavious]

Did you not read? My point was that countries that are weak need to worry about what other countries think, strong countries can do what they like. I wasn't arguing that ONLY countries that were once strong and now weak have to care what others think.

I did read, which is the problem. You said

I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it doesn't have the power it once had

What you didn't say was this

I thought the UK needs to care about what others think specifically because it is a relatively weak nation that can't simply railroad other nations into toing the line

They are different arguments. I responded, funnily enough, to the one you actually made.

Now, if I was being unkind I'd mention that the UK's requirement to take the views of other nations seriously has very little to do with whether said nations have any interest in what the UK does, and so it was actually you who sidetracked the point. But I didn't do that. Instead I tried to answer your sidetracked question in good faith and for my trouble got a load of grief because you forgot what you'd actually asked and took offence.

This is why trying to have a serious discussion with you is such hard work. You're all over the place.

[flash2015]

They are different arguments. I responded, funnily enough, to the one you actually made.

Now, if I was being unkind I'd mention that the UK's requirement to take the views of other nations seriously has very little to do with whether said nations have any interest in what the UK does, and so it was actually you who sidetracked the point. But I didn't do that. Instead I tried to answer your sidetracked question in good faith and for my trouble got a load of grief because you forgot what you'd actually asked and took offence.

This is why trying to have a serious discussion with you is such hard work. You're all over the place.

The most annoying thing about you is you like to play argument games rather than actually having a discussion. I didn't expect you (I guess I should have though) to go off on this tangent so I did clarify in the following post:

It is weird you fixated on that...when that is a side note to my real point - that it cares about what other countries think because it is weak, not because it is strong.

You are misrepresenting what Jamie and orathaic are arguing. At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.

Rather than addressing their specific argument you instead created a strawman and said they argued "that the entire world is waiting with baited breath to see whether we might consider breaching some of the minutiae of trade law", that essentially England can't do anything wrong here because "everyone is watching" (some sort of embarrassment argument?)...and labeled this strawman argument "left wing doublethink" because labels are much easier for you than actually engaging. I tried to actually bring the thread back on track...and of course you derailed it again as you always do.

[Octavious]

At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.

I'm not arguing against that because I don't disagree with it. I said much the same way back at the start of page 2. I am not going to write a counterargument to what I agree with.

But to say that that is what Jamie is arguing is ridiculous. Jamie is arguing that the Tories are doing it as part of an evil plot to benefit themselves and subdue the masses, and in doing so are gleefully going around breaking laws. You can tell that this is what Jamie thinks because this is what he writes. It is not misrepresenting him because they are the words he uses.