June 28, 200818 yr In reply to the "it doesn't affect sovereignity" argument which has being used on this topic, under international law the only way to get out of an international treaty is with another one. Since when? | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules |
June 28, 200818 yr In reply to the "it doesn't affect sovereignity" argument which has being used on this topic, under international law the only way to get out of an international treaty is with another one. Since when? Since the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
June 28, 200818 yr In reply to the "it doesn't affect sovereignity" argument which has being used on this topic, under international law the only way to get out of an international treaty is with another one. Since when? Since the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Laws are open to interpretation anyway, especially international laws, although I did find this very interesting Article: Article 56 Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal 1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless: (a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or (B) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty. 2. A party shall give not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to denounce or withdraw from a treaty under paragraph 1. As I said, interpret that as you will, but I read that as "since we are in a Treaty which (presumably) has no provision regarding its termination and does not provide for withdrawal or denunciation, and since the EU has admitted numerous times that withdrawal of some States is a possibility (complying with clause [a]), so long as we provide the EU Member States with a 12 month notice period, and we publicly denounce the Treaty, we can withdraw from the EU at any point". You'd think a Treaty supposedly as restricting and controlling as that would have that argument made against it by the main political opposition parties of this country (The Conservatives and Lib Dems). It seems strange, therefore, not one party in the opposition has made the point you're making. In fact, I don't think I've even heard UKIP make this point. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules |
June 28, 200818 yr The question is who decides if the 12 month rule applies to the EU treaties? The European Council? The European Comission? Ofcourse the conservatives + liberal democrats won't mention it - The conservative party being anti-EU is one of the most common pieces of disinformation, they where the party which joined into the EEC and signed 2 of the treaties which gave deeper integration inside. David Cameron knows full well the treaty will be ratified fully before the next election and is pretending to oppose it for political gain, the tories promise to do something minor with the EU just before nearly every election (e.g Cameron promising to leave EPP - which was a lie). UKIP is a honey trap to neutralise anti-EU activists.
Create an account or sign in to comment