Boris Johnson humiliated.
- Thread starter moon
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
British Officials Say....these are the same people we have for years been watching flopping around and lying and failing to get the work done.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Fucking idiot, total shit for brains! Just like so many liberals totally incapable of seeing past the bullshit!
Are electric cars worse for the environment?
Crunch the numbers, and it looks like all those subsidies might be counterproductive.
If you believe the headlines, traditional automobiles are speeding toward a dead end. All those V8s, V6s and turbocharged vehicles we’ve grown to love will soon be replaced by squadrons of clean, whisper-quiet, all-electric vehicles. And if you believe the headlines, the environment will be much better off.
Policymakers at every level have done their part to push electric vehicles by creating a tankful of subsidies. Thanks to laws signed by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, electric-vehicle buyers can feast on federal tax credits of up to $7,500 that reduce the initial purchase cost of their vehicles. Not to be outdone, many states also dangle their own mix of goodies for electric vehicle buyers, including purchase rebates as large as $5,000, additional rebates for vehicle chargers, and free use of public charging stations—which, of course, are only “free” because they’re subsidized by ratepayers and taxpayers. Some states even give electric vehicles preferential access to carpool lanes.
Then there are the electric vehicle mandates. In January, California Gov. Jerry Brown decreed that 5 million electric vehicles must be on his state’s roads by 2025, along with 250,000 charging stations. Eight other states are following California’s lead. One California lawmaker has even introduced legislation to ban all internal combustion vehicles by 2040.
All of this might make sense if electric vehicles, as their supporters claim, were truly likely to reduce air pollution and tackle climate change. But are they?
To answer that question, I used the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent long-term forecasts for the number of new electric vehicles through 2050, estimated how much electricity they’d use, and then figured out how much pollution that electricity would generate, looking at three key pollutants regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act—sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulates—as well as CO2 emissions. I compared them to the emissions of new gasoline-powered vehicles, using the EIA’s “real world” miles-per-gallon forecast, rather than the higher CAFE standard values.
What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.
That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.
And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity, and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.
As for states like California with stringent mandates to use more renewable energy for their power grid, they also have the highest electric rates in the continental US, 50% higher than the US average. And electric rates in those states just keep increasing. So it’s a cleaner power mix, but makes recharging your car more expensive. The higher the electric rate, the lower the incentive for a new car buyer to purchase an electric vehicle.
As for greenhouse-gas emissions, my analysis shows that electric vehicles will reduce them compared to new internal combustion vehicles. But based on the EIA’s projection of the number of new electric vehicles, the net reduction in CO2 emissions between 2018 and 2050 would be only about one-half of one percent of total forecast U.S. energy-related carbon emissions. Such a small change will have no impact whatsoever on climate, and thus have no economic benefit.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660/
gemini104104
Verified User
I would think getting hit hard with the affects of the coronavirus would have humbled Boris. Yet like his protegee tRump thus far failed to destroy the pursuit of a humanitarian form of governance as a result of ignorance and a false sense of superiority. Additionally, this as opposed to its un British Brexit form of uncivilized ways that a government should have, and at also being more bait for Russia when it comes to attempting to divide the common unity of Western Europe. What neve this unkempt and smelly man Boris has.What's the matter with the Brits ? Don't they recognize intelligence, gravitas and sincerity when they see it ?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Why isn't this obvious to people? As Samuel Clemens said: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled".
moon
Satire for Sanity
Bozo has chosen his dance partner. It isn't Grandpa Joe.
Boris Johnson's past remarks about Barack Obama were "not well received" and should be "reconsidered", a key ally of Joe Biden has said.
Senator Chris Coons, who has been tipped to become Mr Biden's Secretary of State, made it clear that Democrats disapproved of Mr Johnson's 2016 claim that the-then President had removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office due to his “part-Kenyan” heritage and “ancestral dislike of the British empire”.
The comments enraged Mr Obama's allies, with one of his aides describing Mr Johnson as a "shapeshifting creep" after he congratulated Mr Biden on his victory.
Tommy Vietor, tweeted: "We will never forget your racist comments about Obama and slavish devotion to Trump."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-past-criticism-barack-22976690
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The flaw of that piece is that in America and other places people will not have the freedom to not buy an EV.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Let's see you said that Chernobyl turned you off nuclear power in 1986. So previously I assumed you were a pompous preening Millennial, now it transpires that you're actually no fucking spring chicken and likely in your fifties. No wonder you love Corbyn, he's the dad you never had!
Attachments
moon
Satire for Sanity
Let's see you said that Chernobyl turned you off nuclear power in 1986. So previously I assumed you were a pompous preening Millennial, now it transpires that you're actually no fucking spring chicken and likely in your fifties. No wonder you love Corbyn, he's the dad you never had!
Whatever I am, Comrade maggot- you will never know. Concern yourself instead with the ever-closing disaster of Brexit , an event which will stuff you into the trash-can of history and slam the lid on it.
I hear rumors that you just scraped a trade deal with ...er.....Kenya. What are you going to do with all those ' fresh ' flowers ?
Haw, haw........................haw.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I know what you are, an aging twat living on the dole in Scotland. Met many pompous cunts like you in my life, they are all the same. I imagine you live in a dingy flat in Glasgow with a crazy cat lady, smoke roll ups and drink Buckfast all day!
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win
House of Lords rejects Brexit bill
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government acknowledges that the bill breaches international law, and the legislation has been condemned by the EU, U.S. President-elect Joe Biden and scores of British lawmakers, including many from Johnson’s own Conservative Party.
John Major, a former Conservative prime minister, said the bill had “damaged our reputation around the world.”
https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...oris-johnson-ac754a3512b8031a93aaca89ccd1413c
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government acknowledges that the bill breaches international law, and the legislation has been condemned by the EU, U.S. President-elect Joe Biden and scores of British lawmakers, including many from Johnson’s own Conservative Party.
John Major, a former Conservative prime minister, said the bill had “damaged our reputation around the world.”
https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...oris-johnson-ac754a3512b8031a93aaca89ccd1413c
cancel2 2022
Canceled
.
There is just so much bullshit spouted about the Internal Markets Bill, the Northern Ireland Agreement, international law and the EU. Why the UK government doesn't set the record straight is truly beyond me.
The Unlawful EU - The Shocking Truth - We Present The Evidence
Revealed: The international law-breaking EU has been at it for years
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2020
The EU has been breaking international law openly and shamelessly as a matter of EU policy
Why on earth won’t the UK Government tell the World?
An important and major report from Brexit Facts4EU.Org for MPs and World leaders
BREXIT FACTS4EU.ORG SUMMARY
The EU breaks international law and it does so as a principle
The EU’s Withdrawal Treaty itself contravenes the Good Friday Agreement which is enshrined in international law
The EU intends to put in border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if there is no trade deal
The EU breaks international laws regularly and with impunity
The EU disregards WTO judgements against it
The EU has already requested changes to the supposedly inviolable Withdrawal Treaty – five months after it was signed
The EU is preventing a simple border solution and is disregarding international laws of the sea
The EU has acted in bad faith throughout these EU-UK negotiations, breaking the terms of the Treaty
The Remain-voting Minister Brandon Lewis knew what he was doing when he stated in Parliament that:
“Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We’re taking the powers to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect … in a certain very tightly defined circumstance.”
The UK Government’s draft Internal Markets Bill does NOT break international law. Not at all.
All it does is permit the United Kingdom to apply remedies
in the event that the EU breaks international law.
The Minister’s response to the question from another Remain-voting MP, Sir Bob Neil, was misleading and disingenuous. The true position is contained in the official Government statement issued by the Prime Minister's office on 17 September 2020.
This was a deliberate statement by a Remain-voting Government Minister which unnecessarily sent shock waves around the world. It has resulted in US Presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all but blocking any idea of a free trade agreement with the UK.
In light of this – and if the UK Government will not promulgate the truth about the EU’s systemic law-breaking - then it seems we must present the fundamental and indisputable facts of the EU’s intrinsic contempt for international law.
The evidence - 1. The EU intends to contravene the Good Friday Agreement
The EU’s Withdrawal Agreement itself contravenes the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), which is enshrined in international law and which is guaranteed by the United States. In its Constitutional Issues Section the GFA states that:-
“the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people.”
The Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol clearly alters the status of N.I. as part of the UK, without any consent of the voters. It thereby breaks the GFA. and in doing so breaks international law.
The evidence – 2. The EU intends to put in border controls without a trade deal
The UK has stated explicitly many times that it will not put any hard border between N.I. and the Republic of Ireland.
Conversely the EU has never stated that it will not impose border controls. It is clear that in the event of no deal, the EU intends to make the N.I./Republic of Ireland border into a hard border.
“If you push me to speculate on what will happen with a no-deal I think it’s pretty obvious. You will have a hard border." - Margaritas Schinas, 22 Jan 2019, then Chief Spokesman, now EU Migration and Asylum Commissioner.
Goods crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic amount to no more than a rounding error in the EU’s import figures, totalling just 0.23% of all goods entering the EU. The N.I. border is a fictitious issue which has been used vexatiously by the EU in order to damage the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.
In the last week the EU has even threatened to ban food products from the UK, in direct contravention of WTO rules.
The evidence – 3. The EU breaks international laws regularly and with impunity
It is an incontrovertible fact that the EU sets its autonomy above international law. Some individual EU member countries have even set their own autonomy above the international EU Treaties they have signed.
“The obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty”.
These were the words of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Advocate General Maduro in 2008, in the opinion underpinning the ECJ’s judgement in the case of Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission. These words were taken into the judgement itself. The ECJ was clearly sending out an unambiguous message about the autonomy of the EU legal order vis-à-vis international law and institutions.
Interestingly, one of the main commentators on the Kadi case, Professor Gráinne de Búrca (NYU School of Law) wrote in 2009:
“The judgement represents a significant departure from the conventional presentation and widespread understanding of the EU as an actor maintaining a distinctive commitment to international law and institutions.”
Professor Gráinne de Búrca is not only an eminent academic in matters of law, in particular European Union law and international governance, but is also an Irish citizen.
The evidence - 4. The EU takes no notice of the judgements of the WTO
For 16 years the EU has been ignoring, appealing, and losing WTO judgements in respect of the actions brought by the US Government and Boeing against illegal state subsidies provided to the EU-made Airbus. This dispute has resulted in high tariffs being imposed by the US authorities against the EU, affecting UK goods such as Scotch whisky.
Another example of the EU vs the WTO started In 2008, when the European Court of Justice held that the EU cannot be called upon to compensate for damages resulting from a failure of EU institutions to comply with WTO rulings. In the case in question, the damages were suffered by two Italian companies after the WTO Dispute Settlement Body authorized the United States to suspend tariff concessions against the EU. As in the Airbus case, this was another long-standing dispute.
The evidence – 5. The EU has already requested changes to the Withdrawal Treaty, only five months after it was signed
The supposedly inviolable and unchangeable Withdrawal Treaty (WT) has already been proposed by the EU to be changed after they noticed errors in it.
In June the EU sought to “correct” parts of the WT. Below is just one example of the SEVEN points made in the EU’s decision about this, published in June 2020.
“(5) By oversight, two decisions of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems were not listed in Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement and eight acts which are essential for the application of the rules of the internal market for goods to Northern Ireland were not listed in Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Those decisions and acts should therefore be added to those annexes. In addition, three notes are also necessary to further define the scope of application of certain specific acts listed in Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. These notes should therefore be added to Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.”
- Council Decision (EU) 2020/769 of 10 June 2020
This makes a nonsense of the argument that the Withdrawal Treaty is inviolable. The EU itself already wishes to change it via the Joint Committee.
The evidence – 6. The EU is preventing a simple border solution and is disregarding international laws of the sea
Importantly, the EU and Irish Governments have prevented the Customs authorities of the UK and the Republic from speaking to each other to devise simple, alternative arrangements for the border between North and South – something crucial to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement.
On the fundamental international laws of the sea, Monsieur Barnier has made the extraordinary assertion that whilst the UK will have future sovereignty of its coastal waters, the UK should have no such sovereignty over the fish swimming within these waters. In international law this is nonsense, as the UN’s UNCLOS rules make clear.
The evidence – 7. The EU has acted in bad faith throughout these EU-UK negotiations, breaking the terms of the Treaty
The UK is entitled under international law to expect third countries to act within certain international norms. Of course the EU isn't a country but it likes to behave like one and is acting on the instructions of its 27 Member States, all of whom are obliged by international law to abide by certain UN Resolutions. Looking at just one of these: UN Resolution 2625 on "Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States" it requires, amongst other things, that:
”No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind." and
”Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of any other State or country."
It is evident that the EU has acted in bad faith throughout these negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU. This alone allows the British Government to repudiate the Treaty and pursue actions in the interests of the country and its people.
The EU’s intent was clear from the outset.
“This will not be an amicable divorce”
- Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, 24 June 2016
This set the tone for all future discussions and was followed by a raft of EU diktaks, none of which were based in law.
For example, the EU forbade the UK from speaking to governments around the world about future trading relations. It even forbade the UK from speaking to the individual governments of EU member countries.
The EU has quite evidently not acted ‘in good faith’ and nor has it used its ‘best endeavours’. It has consistently attempted to impose unreasonable restrictions on withdrawal and trade talks with the UK. The EU has insisted (and is still insisting) on discussing its red lines first, before talking about the details of a trade agreement.
During these supposed trade talks the EU has imposed restrictive clauses on the UK which it has not used on any other major country in trade negotiations. These demands are not in any way consistent with the conditions which prevail in any free trade agreement between any other major countries in the world.
In short, the EU has acted in a punitive and hostile manner towards the United Kingdom, and the UK is now within its rights under international law to repudiate the Withdrawal Treaty on this basis.
https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_the_unlawful_eu#
There is just so much bullshit spouted about the Internal Markets Bill, the Northern Ireland Agreement, international law and the EU. Why the UK government doesn't set the record straight is truly beyond me.
The Unlawful EU - The Shocking Truth - We Present The Evidence
Revealed: The international law-breaking EU has been at it for years
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2020
The EU has been breaking international law openly and shamelessly as a matter of EU policy
Why on earth won’t the UK Government tell the World?
An important and major report from Brexit Facts4EU.Org for MPs and World leaders
BREXIT FACTS4EU.ORG SUMMARY
The EU breaks international law and it does so as a principle
The EU’s Withdrawal Treaty itself contravenes the Good Friday Agreement which is enshrined in international law
The EU intends to put in border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if there is no trade deal
The EU breaks international laws regularly and with impunity
The EU disregards WTO judgements against it
The EU has already requested changes to the supposedly inviolable Withdrawal Treaty – five months after it was signed
The EU is preventing a simple border solution and is disregarding international laws of the sea
The EU has acted in bad faith throughout these EU-UK negotiations, breaking the terms of the Treaty
The Remain-voting Minister Brandon Lewis knew what he was doing when he stated in Parliament that:
“Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We’re taking the powers to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect … in a certain very tightly defined circumstance.”
The UK Government’s draft Internal Markets Bill does NOT break international law. Not at all.
All it does is permit the United Kingdom to apply remedies
in the event that the EU breaks international law.
The Minister’s response to the question from another Remain-voting MP, Sir Bob Neil, was misleading and disingenuous. The true position is contained in the official Government statement issued by the Prime Minister's office on 17 September 2020.
This was a deliberate statement by a Remain-voting Government Minister which unnecessarily sent shock waves around the world. It has resulted in US Presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all but blocking any idea of a free trade agreement with the UK.
In light of this – and if the UK Government will not promulgate the truth about the EU’s systemic law-breaking - then it seems we must present the fundamental and indisputable facts of the EU’s intrinsic contempt for international law.
The evidence - 1. The EU intends to contravene the Good Friday Agreement
The EU’s Withdrawal Agreement itself contravenes the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), which is enshrined in international law and which is guaranteed by the United States. In its Constitutional Issues Section the GFA states that:-
“the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people.”
The Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol clearly alters the status of N.I. as part of the UK, without any consent of the voters. It thereby breaks the GFA. and in doing so breaks international law.
The evidence – 2. The EU intends to put in border controls without a trade deal
The UK has stated explicitly many times that it will not put any hard border between N.I. and the Republic of Ireland.
Conversely the EU has never stated that it will not impose border controls. It is clear that in the event of no deal, the EU intends to make the N.I./Republic of Ireland border into a hard border.
“If you push me to speculate on what will happen with a no-deal I think it’s pretty obvious. You will have a hard border." - Margaritas Schinas, 22 Jan 2019, then Chief Spokesman, now EU Migration and Asylum Commissioner.
Goods crossing the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic amount to no more than a rounding error in the EU’s import figures, totalling just 0.23% of all goods entering the EU. The N.I. border is a fictitious issue which has been used vexatiously by the EU in order to damage the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.
In the last week the EU has even threatened to ban food products from the UK, in direct contravention of WTO rules.
The evidence – 3. The EU breaks international laws regularly and with impunity
It is an incontrovertible fact that the EU sets its autonomy above international law. Some individual EU member countries have even set their own autonomy above the international EU Treaties they have signed.
“The obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty”.
These were the words of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Advocate General Maduro in 2008, in the opinion underpinning the ECJ’s judgement in the case of Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission. These words were taken into the judgement itself. The ECJ was clearly sending out an unambiguous message about the autonomy of the EU legal order vis-à-vis international law and institutions.
Interestingly, one of the main commentators on the Kadi case, Professor Gráinne de Búrca (NYU School of Law) wrote in 2009:
“The judgement represents a significant departure from the conventional presentation and widespread understanding of the EU as an actor maintaining a distinctive commitment to international law and institutions.”
Professor Gráinne de Búrca is not only an eminent academic in matters of law, in particular European Union law and international governance, but is also an Irish citizen.
The evidence - 4. The EU takes no notice of the judgements of the WTO
For 16 years the EU has been ignoring, appealing, and losing WTO judgements in respect of the actions brought by the US Government and Boeing against illegal state subsidies provided to the EU-made Airbus. This dispute has resulted in high tariffs being imposed by the US authorities against the EU, affecting UK goods such as Scotch whisky.
Another example of the EU vs the WTO started In 2008, when the European Court of Justice held that the EU cannot be called upon to compensate for damages resulting from a failure of EU institutions to comply with WTO rulings. In the case in question, the damages were suffered by two Italian companies after the WTO Dispute Settlement Body authorized the United States to suspend tariff concessions against the EU. As in the Airbus case, this was another long-standing dispute.
The evidence – 5. The EU has already requested changes to the Withdrawal Treaty, only five months after it was signed
The supposedly inviolable and unchangeable Withdrawal Treaty (WT) has already been proposed by the EU to be changed after they noticed errors in it.
In June the EU sought to “correct” parts of the WT. Below is just one example of the SEVEN points made in the EU’s decision about this, published in June 2020.
“(5) By oversight, two decisions of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems were not listed in Part I of Annex I to the Withdrawal Agreement and eight acts which are essential for the application of the rules of the internal market for goods to Northern Ireland were not listed in Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Those decisions and acts should therefore be added to those annexes. In addition, three notes are also necessary to further define the scope of application of certain specific acts listed in Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. These notes should therefore be added to Annex 2 to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.”
- Council Decision (EU) 2020/769 of 10 June 2020
This makes a nonsense of the argument that the Withdrawal Treaty is inviolable. The EU itself already wishes to change it via the Joint Committee.
The evidence – 6. The EU is preventing a simple border solution and is disregarding international laws of the sea
Importantly, the EU and Irish Governments have prevented the Customs authorities of the UK and the Republic from speaking to each other to devise simple, alternative arrangements for the border between North and South – something crucial to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement.
On the fundamental international laws of the sea, Monsieur Barnier has made the extraordinary assertion that whilst the UK will have future sovereignty of its coastal waters, the UK should have no such sovereignty over the fish swimming within these waters. In international law this is nonsense, as the UN’s UNCLOS rules make clear.
The evidence – 7. The EU has acted in bad faith throughout these EU-UK negotiations, breaking the terms of the Treaty
The UK is entitled under international law to expect third countries to act within certain international norms. Of course the EU isn't a country but it likes to behave like one and is acting on the instructions of its 27 Member States, all of whom are obliged by international law to abide by certain UN Resolutions. Looking at just one of these: UN Resolution 2625 on "Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States" it requires, amongst other things, that:
”No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind." and
”Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of any other State or country."
It is evident that the EU has acted in bad faith throughout these negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU. This alone allows the British Government to repudiate the Treaty and pursue actions in the interests of the country and its people.
The EU’s intent was clear from the outset.
“This will not be an amicable divorce”
- Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, 24 June 2016
This set the tone for all future discussions and was followed by a raft of EU diktaks, none of which were based in law.
For example, the EU forbade the UK from speaking to governments around the world about future trading relations. It even forbade the UK from speaking to the individual governments of EU member countries.
The EU has quite evidently not acted ‘in good faith’ and nor has it used its ‘best endeavours’. It has consistently attempted to impose unreasonable restrictions on withdrawal and trade talks with the UK. The EU has insisted (and is still insisting) on discussing its red lines first, before talking about the details of a trade agreement.
During these supposed trade talks the EU has imposed restrictive clauses on the UK which it has not used on any other major country in trade negotiations. These demands are not in any way consistent with the conditions which prevail in any free trade agreement between any other major countries in the world.
In short, the EU has acted in a punitive and hostile manner towards the United Kingdom, and the UK is now within its rights under international law to repudiate the Withdrawal Treaty on this basis.
https://facts4eu.org/news/2020_sep_the_unlawful_eu#
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Boeing (NYSE:BA) was helping to drive the Dow higher following a report suggesting that U.S. regulators would approve the 737 MAX for a return to service this month.