Can You Handle The Truth Remainers?………….WELL, CAN YOU

Graham Charles Lear
13 min readSep 22, 2020

The Shocking Truth — I Present The Evidence that the unlawful EU breaks international law with impunity.

International law-breaking. Pfffft the EU has been at it for years

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? Well if they won't then others must spread the word and I hope after reading this you spread the word far and wide.

The EU breaks international law and it does so as a principle

  1. The EU’s Withdrawal Treaty itself contravenes the Good Friday Agreement which is enshrined in international law
  2. The EU intends to put in border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if there is no trade deal
  3. The EU breaks international laws regularly and with impunity
  4. The EU disregards WTO judgements against it
  5. The EU has already requested changes to the supposedly inviolable Withdrawal Treaty — five months after it was signed
  6. The EU is preventing a simple border solution and is disregarding international laws of the sea
  7. 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

I would say to my hon. Friend that yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect, required by article 4, in certain very tightly defined circumstances. There are clear precedents of this for the UK and, indeed, other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. I say to hon. Members here, many of whom would have been in this House when we passed the Finance Act 2013, that that Act contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflict with the general anti-abuse rule. I say to my hon. Friend that we are determined to ensure that we are delivering on the agreement that we have in the protocol, and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the Joint Committee work. The clauses that will be in the Bill tomorrow are specifically there should that fail, ensuring that we can deliver on our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.

Well, 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. You can click on the link or read it below.

HMG will ask Parliament to support the use of the provisions in Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the UKIM Bill, and any similar subsequent provisions, only in the case of, in our view, the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations, and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Examples of such behaviour would include:

a. insistence that GB-NI tariffs and related provisions such as import VAT should be charged in ways that are not related to the real risk of goods entering the EU single market;

b. such insistence under (a.) leading to a failure to reach an agreement in the Joint Committee, with the result that the default provisions on tariffs between GB and NI apply;

c. insistence on paperwork requirements (export declarations) for NI goods going to GB, thereby compromising the principle of “unfettered access” in Article 6 of the Protocol;

d. insistence that the EU’s state aid provisions should apply in GB in circumstances when there is no link or only a trivial one to commercial operations taking place in NI; and

e. refusal to grant 3rd country listing to UK agricultural goods for manifestly unreasonable or poorly justified reasons.

HMG confirms that in parallel with the use of these provisions it would always activate appropriate formal dispute settlement mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route.

Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill, relating to tariffs on GB-NI movements, including the same Parliamentary process that the Government has committed to for the UKIM Bill.

This is the question asked in Parliament by ex-PM Theresa May-Sep 8

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations (8 Sep 2020)

Theresa May: The United Kingdom Government signed the withdrawal agreement with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Parliament voted that withdrawal agreement into UK legislation. The Government are now changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the Government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations in the agreements it signs?

This is the answer by Brandon Lewis

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations (8 Sep 2020)

I would say to my hon. Friend that yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect, required by article 4, in certain very tightly defined circumstances. There are clear precedents of this for the UK and, indeed, other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. I say to the hon. Members here, many of whom would have been in this House when we passed the Finance Act 2013, that that Act contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflict with the general anti-abuse rule. I say to my hon. Friend that we are determined to ensure that we are delivering on the agreement that we have in the protocol, and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the Joint Committee work. The clauses that will be in the Bill tomorrow are specifically there should that fail, ensuring that we can deliver on our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.

There we have it. If you take the time to look Lewis had been answering questions all morning from opposition members and it was not until one of his own party members ex-PM May asked that one question, that he told everybody that the UK was breaking international law. It was a neatly planned hatchet job by the pair of them.

Here it is again The Government are now changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the Government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations in the agreements it signs?

However let us move on from Lawyers, treason and plot,

I know of no reason,

Why Remoaner treason,

Should ever be forgotten.

For the time being and look at how that great bastian of law and order the EU ( I am being sarcastic) breaks international law with impunity.

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.

Then we have this

“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%

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

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

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 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 argument that the Withdrawal Treaty is inviolable. The EU itself already wished 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 both the British and Irish Republican Customs from speaking together. to devise simple, alternative arrangements for the border between North and South — something crucial to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement.

“There are no formal conversations with either the French or the Irish. We cannot talk to Customs or taxation management organisations in either of those countries.”

“We do not believe we require any infrastructure between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances.”

- Sir Jon Thompson, former Chief Executive of HM Revenue and Customs, giving evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee, 29 Nov 2017

Sir Jon went on to say that discussions with the Irish Revenue had started, but was halted — and not by the British.

https://medium.com/@graham100200/the-eu-pays-scant-regard-to-its-own-laws-let-alone-its-international-obligations-3f7fe3a00707

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 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.”

https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/3dda1f104.pdf

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 diktats, none of which were based on 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.

The United Kingdom Government has not broken international law

Indeed the record of the United Kingdom is exemplary when compared to that of the European Union, as I have shown above.

The EU habitually breaks international law and fails to abide by the judgements of the WTO, insisting that its own laws are paramount. Members of Congress along with Biden and Pelosi will be familiar with the high-profile case involving Boeing and Airbus, for example.

Sadly, the UK Government’s performance in communicating the salient facts to its own public and to the wider world has been lamentable. I hope that the worldwide audience will appreciate that whilst the communication has been dire, the facts are another matter.

The facts show that the EU is a habitual breaker of international law, that its own Withdrawal Treaty breaks the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, that it has treated the United Kingdom like a colony to be oppressed, and that the UK has acted with enormous restraint under all these circumstances.

An increasing number of MPs in the UK Parliament are now of the view that the EU has not acted in good faith nor used its best endeavours, as required by the Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol. There is now a very solid case for the UK Government to repudiate the EU’s Withdrawal Treaty forthwith.

The World can continue to rely on the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom remains what it has always been: an originator and upholder of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

I sincerely hope to have the support of our many friends around the world in our determination to ensure that a fully free, independent, and sovereign United Kingdom can once again play its role on the world stage, unencumbered by totalitarian diktats from unelected officials in Brussels.

Above all please share this article around. The truth of what the EU along with British Remainers in Government and indeed Parliament in general are doing must get out not just in this country but outside our country.

[ Sources: Hansard | The Prime Minister’s office | Senator Joe Biden | The Good Friday Agreement | Margaritas Schinas, EU press conference | Eurostat | HMRC | NISRA | The European Court of Justice (CJEU) | The World Trade Organisation | The EU Council | The EU Commission | The Dáil (Irish Parliament) | Bundesverfassungsgericht Karlsruhe (German Constitutional Court) | The United Nations ]

--

--

Graham Charles Lear

What is life without a little controversy in it? Quite boring and sterile would be my answer.