- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,936
- Reaction score
- 644
- Country
why say anything to France, they're already there. (safe in a well respected democratic European country) If France has been stupid enough to let them in then they can just stay there.
Bibby Bargain Barge?
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
And they can also let them out, via the channel.
A Treaty is a whole, not a collection of parts.
One cannot sign a Treaty, excluding clause a, b, or c.
One either signs the Treaty or one doesn't. Or one goes back to the negotiating position to have the offending clause removed or reworded.
Your opinion is shown to be ludicrously wrong again.
A Treaty is still a whole, not a collection of clauses to enact, or not, as the case maybe.
One signs the whole, not the individual parts.
If a part is unacceptable, you return to the negotiating stage to have the offending clause removed or reworded.
There's no confusion over which disciplines are involved or not.
virtually all the people arriving in the U.K. by illegal means come from France.
and you think the solution is not to talk to France.
Do you realise the migrant crisis is an international crisis and therefore the solution has to be international collaboration.
Do you realise stamping your feet and screaming “I don’t want any of them coming here” is not a solution whatsoever
the difference is: Labour we’re just brainstorming, Conservatives were mad enough to go through with the Rwanda scheme
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
There is nothing wrong with article 19.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
So let’s say you sign a contract with lots of well defined obligations and there are a couple of clauses that are less well defined and one that is unenforceable. You are suggesting that the whole contract is unenforceable, because you signed the contract as a whole?A Treaty is still a whole, not a collection of clauses to enact, or not, as the case maybe.
One signs the whole, not the individual parts.
If a part is unacceptable, you return to the negotiating stage to have the offending clause removed or reworded.
There's no confusion over which disciplines are involved or not.
Roy you’ve gone down a rabbit hole with this one.A Treaty is still a whole, not a collection of clauses to enact, or not, as the case maybe.
One signs the whole, not the individual parts.
If a part is unacceptable, you return to the negotiating stage to have the offending clause removed or reworded.
There's no confusion over which disciplines are involved or not.
You are best to hold your hand up and admit you are wrong.
a contract made of a number of clauses, one part unclear / undefined is still a contract and the defined elements stand.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
More chance of plaiting p!ss
More likely, Hammas will repeat their Doctor Who impression, regenerate and, when spotted within three posts, deny all accusations.
No-one suggested there was. You and Jonathon claimed it was unenforcable, which is nonsense.
It's very clear, UK has to resettle some vulnerable refugees, the number of and the vulnerability of is to be determined.
Only Rwanda can determine which refugees are vulnerable because they're in Rwanda.
Only Rwanda can determine the qunatity because they're in Rwanda.
It wouldn't be any good if it was unenforcable. That clause might as well not be there, if it was unenforcable by either party.
That isn't the case with Article 19, either party can enforce it, but UK would not want to, if it could avoid it, whereas the other party can enforce it.
UK cannot claim they didn't sign it, ot they want to ignore it, or they thought it was unenforcable.
Exactly, Article 19 can be applied by either party. UK cannot claim they didn't sign it, or they thought it was unenforcable.