Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
If the UK decides it has the right to invalidate portions of an international treaty it just signed, why would other nations be interested in signing treaties with the UK?
It does have the right as already explained.
Section 38 allows the UK Parliament to change any part that conflicts with national sovereignty.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
No, the UK isn't violating the law. But, yes, the UK is acting underhanded here. If the UK made mention that it would do what it is trying to do now, the agreement between the UK and the EU would have never been signed. The expectation was that such a move would not happen. And, note, countries and singularly modify or cancel treaties at will. That's not the point.
I will say that this falls in line with how the UK has behaved in the Anne Sacoolas case in trying to walk back on its treaty obligations that the UK government agreed granted Ms. Sacoolas immunity when it allowed her to leave the country.
So, while I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi often, her threat of a US-UK trade deal being dead in the US House of Representatives if the UK goes through with this revision is not something I have a problem with as the UK is showing with increasing regularity that it has no problem going against the spirit or actual text of a treaty.
Again, to be clear, the UK has every right to do what it is doing. But that's not the problem that I and others have.
As previously pointed out, the fact that Jonathan Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity in relation to serious crimes off base was never disputed. A serious crime being one which carries a sentence of over 5 years such as Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and Barristers from the Crown Prosecution Service examined the laws fully as well as any agreements before determining that Anne Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity by extension of her husbands role, and it was then decided to charge her with causing death by dangerous driving and then for the UK authorities to issue am Interpol Notice for her arrest.
The MP who signed the agreement as even went on record to say that it was never meant to cover immunity outside of technical work roles and a top Diplomat has gone on record and called the American stance ridiculous.
The UK Prime Minister and Government have stated that there is no Diplomatic Immunity and the case constituents an avoidance of justice, whilst the US are harbouring a fugitive.
The UK Government have also written to South Northamptonshire County Council stating that all Planning Permission for Croughton must now go through the Security of State after Andrea Leadsom the local MP for the area made a speech in the House calling for planning permission for the base to be rejected until Anne Sacoolas was brought to justice.
The Attorney General is now considering trying Anne Sacoolas in absentia, and the Americans are now working on a resolution, whereby Sacoolas can stand trial by video conferencing serve any sentence in the US. Although any sentence is likely to be a fine and a driving ban given judicial precedent in relation to similar cases.
The High Court case in November is separate and will examine the wrongful actions of the Foreign Office in this process, and establish further legal clarity in relation to events.
The US is now backing down and the agreement has been further clarified in relation to spouses not having immunity, whilst a trial now looks increasingly likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
Family acknowledge US government ‘working towards’ Anne Sacoolas facing UK justice system.
The family of Harry Dunn have withdrawn their intention to sue the US government over his death in a bid to find a “resolution to the impasse”.
The 19-year-old’s parents, Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, previously said they would pursue a claim against Donald Trump’s administration for its handling of their son’s case.
But Charles has told the Press Association that the family “can now see that the US government are working towards” suspect Anne Sacoolas facing the UK justice system.
The US Department of State recently said it was looking for a “reasonable resolution” after news emerged that the UK attorney general, Suella Braverman, was considering the possibility of a virtual trial or a trial in Sacoolas’s absence.
As previously pointed out, the fact that Jonathan Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity in relation to serious crimes off base was never disputed. A serious crime being one which carries a sentence of over 5 years such as Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and Barristers from the Crown Prosecution Service examined the laws fully as well as any agreements before determining that Anne Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity by extension of her husbands role, and it was then decided to charge her with causing death by dangerous driving and then for the UK authorities to issue am Interpol Notice for her arrest.
The MP who signed the agreement as even went on record to say that it was never meant to cover immunity outside of technical work roles and a top Diplomat has gone on record and called the American stance ridiculous.
The UK Prime Minister and Government have stated that there is no Diplomatic Immunity and the case constituents an avoidance of justice, whilst the US are harbouring a fugitive.
The UK Government have also written to South Northamptonshire County Council stating that all Planning Permission for Croughton must now go through the Security of State after Andrea Leadsom the local MP for the area made a speech in the House calling for planning permission for the base to be rejected until Anne Sacoolas was brought to justice.
The Attorney General is now considering trying Anne Sacoolas in absentia, and the Americans are now working on a resolution, whereby Sacoolas can stand trial by video conferencing serve any sentence in the US. Although any sentence is likely to be a fine and a driving ban given judicial precedent in relation to similar cases.
The High Court case in November is separate and will examine the wrongful actions of the Foreign Office in this process, and establish further legal clarity in relation to events.
The US is now backing down -
The UK government--to include Dominic Raab before Parliament--has admitted mulitple times that Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity and allowed her to leave the country on that basis. The UK now wants to go past that treaty understanding unilaterally--which is its right--just like it wants to go around the understanding of the EU treaty that it knows would have never been signed if this is what the EU thought would happen. But it doesn't give the international community much confidence that the UK will adhere to the text or spirit of a treaty. So I say good on the US for refusing to turn over Anne Sacoolas and good on Nancy Pelosi for making the statements that she did regarding any potential UK-US trade deal.
How many times do you need to be told that top lawyers have looked through the case and have made the decision based on the agreement and the law.
As for reporting me, you have specifically come to this thread and hijacked it in hoping to get some kind of response.
I have been through the case numerous times and explained it numerous times and you still can't take it board and still feel the need to bring it up in unrelated threads.
How many times do you have to be told (by me and others, including in the POC, UK, and Current Events forums) that the UK government--which is responsible for signing treaties--has acknowledged on multiple occasions that Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity? That they are now trying to go back on that interpretation doesn't change a thing. Certainly not as far as the US is concerned, wihch is all that matters as Sacoolas is in the US.
And please stop acting like I brought this up in some fashion completely unrelated to the thread It was brought up specifically to serve as another example of the UK not abiding by the text or spirit of its treaty obligations. It was brought up directly in relation to this most recent case regarding the Brexit agreement with the EU, again as another recent example of the UK behaving similarly.
They would likely revive TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), which is a trade agreement between EU and US, and would enable practically tariff-free trade between US and EU. Maybe UK wishes to be a part of it, or maybe they'd stay out of it. That is for them to decide and negotiate, but they would not be automatic members.
I’m not sure about TTIP. Back in 2016 Canada and the EU were still negotiating a free trade agreement. I remember articles where Europeans weren’t keen on a deal with the U.S. and viewed a deal with Canada as a “slippery slope” towards a US deal. They thought that U.S. companies would somehow get an advantage with the EU with a Canada deal (that concern didn’t make sense to me). This was before Trump was a concern. So I don’t know what the attitude is now.
What I do see with a Biden presidency is an attempt at a co-ordinated international approach, not just in trade, against China. I think there is growing international consensus that China’s bullying attempts to control decisions and attitudes in other countries needs to be stopped.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene
I’m not sure about TTIP. Back in 2016 Canada and the EU were still negotiating a free trade agreement. I remember articles where Europeans weren’t keen on a deal with the U.S. and viewed a deal with Canada as a “slippery slope” towards a US deal. They thought that U.S. companies would somehow get an advantage with the EU with a Canada deal (that concern didn’t make sense to me). This was before Trump was a concern. So I don’t know what the attitude is now.
What I do see with a Biden presidency is an attempt at a co-ordinated international approach, not just in trade, against China. I think there is growing international consensus that China’s bullying attempts to control decisions and attitudes in other countries needs to be stopped.
The UK is examining TTIP and other options in relation to trade deals, as well as tying to secure a trade deal with the EU.
Some trade deals will be successful and some won't.
I’m not sure about TTIP. Back in 2016 Canada and the EU were still negotiating a free trade agreement. I remember articles where Europeans weren’t keen on a deal with the U.S. and viewed a deal with Canada as a “slippery slope” towards a US deal. They thought that U.S. companies would somehow get an advantage with the EU with a Canada deal (that concern didn’t make sense to me). This was before Trump was a concern. So I don’t know what the attitude is now.
I dont know what those concerns were. US has had a deal with Canada since the 1990s, and still do. TTIP would have been the largest trade deal ever negotiated, but of course Trump had to freeze it because it didn't carry his name on it. I think it would be back on the table if Biden win (which I doubt).
I would love to see some kind of treaty between the US/MX/CA and the UK and perhaps EU. Perhaps not full free trade as I expect they could not compete in agriculture vs the US and Canada, but something to encourage trade with "ANYONE ELSE but China."
I dont know what those concerns were. US has had a deal with Canada since the 1990s, and still do. TTIP would have been the largest trade deal ever negotiated, but of course Trump had to freeze it because it didn't carry his name on it. I think it would be back on the table if Biden win (which I doubt).
Have no idea if Biden will win or not or if the TTIP would be back on the table if he did.
However, if he did win, and it was back on the table, and if the EU and the US signed on, this would represent potentially the largest regional free-trade agreement in history, covering nearly half of world GDP.
While the UK may be "considering" joining TTIP, got to wonder if the EU would be interested.
UK would be a small player and if it didn't honor it's agreements, why bother?
I would love to see some kind of treaty between the US/MX/CA and the UK and perhaps EU. Perhaps not full free trade as I expect they could not compete in agriculture vs the US and Canada, but something to encourage trade with "ANYONE ELSE but China."
Trans-Pacific Partnership perhaps?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was brought up specifically to serve as another example of the UK not abiding by the text or spirit of its treaty obligations. It was brought up directly in relation to this most recent case regarding the Brexit agreement with the EU, again as another recent example of the UK behaving similarly.
