Bibby Bargain Barge?

[Roy Bloom]

you don't need evidence for the bleedin obvious

And when there is evidence your prejudice overrides it.

 

[noseall]

might

Lol.

What the Tories are doing to the UK is present day and happening now.

 

[JonathanM]

So the "Treaty" isn't really a treaty, it's a Gentleman's agreement to have a Treaty? Then none of it is enforcable in law, because the bit you dislike is not specified to your liking and is rather vague?

None of that is true. It is a treaty. There is one clause that has been written so vaguely as to be unenforceable. But that doesn't prevent the rest of the treaty being enforceable.

The clause in question has obviously been written that way deliberately. In particular, the choice of the word "portion". It could mean anything from 0.001% to 99.999%. Any court asked to decide its meaning would just laugh.

 

[Roy Bloom]

The clause in question has obviously been written that way deliberately.

I didn't realise you were on the negotiating team.

It is a treaty.

So it is a Treaty now?

I think it is more akin to an agreement to make an agreement.

There is one clause that has been written so vaguely as to be unenforceable. But that doesn't prevent the rest of the treaty being enforceable.

So it is an utterly pointless clause.

Isn't that one of the key facets of diplomacy? Making things deliberately ambiguous and meaningless so both sides can claim a victory.

The clause in question has obviously been written that way deliberately. In particular, the choice of the word "portion". It could mean anything from 0.001% to 99.999%. Any court asked to decide its meaning would just laugh.

I didn't realise you would be on the concilliation panel as well.
We might as well rip up the Treaty because you and motorbiking don't think it's worth the paper on which it's written. (only because there's a c;ause in there you don't like)

 

[JonathanM]

So it is a Treaty now?

It has always been a treaty. There is one clause which I said appeared to be more like an agreement to make an agreement. But I was just referring to that one clause, not the whole treaty.

So it is an utterly pointless clause.

It certainly wouldn't be enforceable in any court.

I didn't realise you would be on the concilliation panel as well.

I don't need to be. But I do understand the meaning of the word "portion".

We might as well rip up the Treaty because you and motorbiking don't think it's worth the paper on which it's written. (only because there's a c;ause in there you don't like)

I welcome the clause. This isn't ideological for me. The rest of that sentence is beyond silly. I am beginning to see why so many people have you on ignore. I can't work out whether you really can't understand this stuff or whether you just like an argument. Either way, it is unlikely I will engage further with you on this matter.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It has always been a treaty. There is one clause which I said appeared to be more like an agreement to make an agreement. But I was just referring to that one clause, not the whole treaty.

You're certainly hop, skipping and jumping about trying to justify your opinion.
It was a treaty, then it was an agreement to have an agreement, then it became a treaty again, then just the one clause became an agreement to have an agreement, which was embedded in the treaty.
A treaty is a whole, not a collection of parts.

It certainly wouldn't be enforceable in any court.

So it's a clause embedded in a treaty, which isn't enforceable?
But it's only the clause that isn't enforceable, not the whole treaty?
Give it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.

I don't need to be. But I do understand the meaning of the word "portion".

While you'll happily twist, turn, swivel and side-step the meaning on 'Treaty'.
And predict the outcome of any concilliation court.

This isn't ideological for me.

Oh of course, argue for the support of an illogical argument, then claim you're independent.

The rest of that sentence is beyond silly. I'm beginning to so why so many people have you on ignore. I can't work out whether you really can't understand this stuff or whether you just like an argument. Either way, it is unlikely I will engage further with you on this matter.

I'm beginning to think it would be a blessing if you did put me on ignore because your arguments are getting as silly as others'.

While you're so'ing, do some reaping.

 

[motorbiking]

None of that is true. It is a treaty. There is one clause that has been written so vaguely as to be unenforceable. But that doesn't prevent the rest of the treaty being enforceable.

The clause in question has obviously been written that way deliberately. In particular, the choice of the word "portion". It could mean anything from 0.001% to 99.999%. Any court asked to decide its meaning would just laugh.

Exactly, I don’t know why some are struggling to get their heads round it.

 

[motorbiking]

You're certainly hop, skipping and jumping about trying to justify your opinion.
It was a treaty, then it was an agreement to have an agreement, then it became a treaty again, then just the one clause became an agreement to have an agreement, which was embedded in the treaty.
A treaty is a whole, not a collection of parts.


So it's a clause embedded in a treaty, which isn't enforceable?
But it's only the clause that isn't enforceable, not the whole treaty?
Give it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.



While you'll happily twist, turn, swivel and side-step the meaning on 'Treaty'.
And predict the outcome of any concilliation court.



Oh of course, argue for the support of an illogical argument, then claim you're independent.



I'm beginning to think it would be a blessing if you did put me on ignore because your arguments are getting as silly as others'.

While you're so'ing, do some reaping.

The only fool is you Jim. You are making yourself look incredibly stupid with your attempt to corner someone who clearly understands the text vastly better than you.

 

[Roy Bloom]

The only fool is you Jim. You are making yourself look incredibly stupid with your attempt to corner someone who clearly understands the text vastly better than you.

The treaty is a whole, not a collection of parts.
it's either all enforcable or none of it is.

It was Jonathon that couldn't decide whether it was a treaty, or an agreement to have an agrrement, and thern it was a treaty again.
He swivelled and hopped to suit his mood.
So much for his vastly greater understanding.

And you've offered nothing more than your opinion. And we know how myopic that is.

If a clause has been written vaguely, it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and no concilliation process could accurately and correctly decide how each party interpreted it at the time of signing. That partisan interpretation can change over time, and the conciliation adjudicator could not know what the original interpretation was.
So if both interpretations are equally applicable, the conciliation process will either decide in favour of the the party first invoking the clause. That'll be Rwanda. Or they'll decide the treaty was so badly worded it falls apart at the first hurdle.
And if any conciliation process couldn't decide, the whole treaty falls apart.

Unless one party can be persauded (with a great wad of cash again) to accept a mutually agreed interpretation.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Exactly, I don’t know why some are struggling to get their heads round it.

Simple. Because the clause is open to individual interpretation.
You fail to see that, which is why you fail to see the point of the discussion.
Which shows that you have no understanding of other's points of view.

It's called myopic. It's also called closed-mind, narrow-minded, and other simlar descriptions.

 

[motorbiking]

The treaty is a whole, not a collection of parts.
it's either all enforcable or none of it is.

It was Jonathon that couldn't decide whether it was a treaty, or an agreement to have an agrrement, and thern it was a treaty again.
He swivelled and hopped to suit his mood.
So much for his vastly greater understanding.

And you've offered nothing more than your opinion. And we know how myopic that is.

If a clause has been written vaguely, it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, and no concilliation process could accurately and correctly decide how each party interpreted it at the time of signing. That partisan interpretation can change over time, and the conciliation adjudicator could not know what the original interpretation was.
So if both interpretations are equally applicable, the conciliation process will either decide in favour of the the party first invoking the clause. That'll be Rwanda. Or they'll decide the treaty was so badly worded it falls apart at the first hurdle.
And if any conciliation process couldn't decide, the whole treaty falls apart.

Unless one party can be persauded (with a great wad of cash again) to accept a mutually agreed interpretation.

Your argument fails on the first sentence.

 

[motorbiking]

Simple. Because the clause is open to individual interpretation.
You fail to see that, which is why you fail to see the point of the discussion.
Which shows that you have no understanding of other's points of view.

It's called myopic. It's also called closed-mind, narrow-minded, and other simlar descriptions.

I’m not interested in a point of view that has no basis in law. But it was hilarious to see your attempt to draw in criminal statutes, tort, special contracts, deeds etc as examples to back up your view. You clearly had no idea that each is an entirely separate discipline.

 

[Notch7]

Yes none of them, couldn't care less what country takes them

So if you don’t want any of them coming here, which country is going to take more?

lets say 50,000 come to U.K. every year.

so we want 0 to come here and we say to France “you can take 50,000 more.”


talk us through how that’s going to work

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Your argument fails on the first sentence.

Your argument fails on thinking that the law is simple and straightforward.

If it was there would be no need for lawyers, to interpret and find the weaknesses.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The treaty is a whole, not a collection of parts.
it's either all enforcable or none of it is.

And you've offered nothing more than your opinion. And we know how myopic that is.