Should we Breach International Laws?

When does a law not become fit for purpose I guess I'm asking - and if we see ones that aren't fit for purpose should we do something about them, or just sit and suffer - because that's what the law tells us we should do?

There seems to be three issues that are popping up at the moment.

The Northern Ireland Trade Deal.

In simple terms as I understand it, it is simply about cutting out the unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork that has arisen since the Brexit deal we did with the EU.

If we deliver goods for NI consumption there is a mountain of paperwork to do - that simply wasn't there before.

The government seems to want to create a green and red channel. similar to when you come and go through custom checkouts when you go abroad and return.  The Green Channel would be for goods ending their journey in NI, the Red Channel for those moving onwards to Ireland or further abroad.

Seems simple enough - but the EU is rightly concerned of goods going through the green channel then illegally finding their way out of NI and into Ireland.

The Steel Deal

In simple terms the government needs to protect our steel manufacturing industry in the national interest.  The thing is though it is cheaper to import steel from other country's than make it ourselves.

Other countries governments subsidise their steel industries to produce cheap steel for export, we believe that to be unfair and can introduce a certain level of tariffs accordingly to protect ourselves from unfair trading.

The thing is though the international limits we are working too, simply don't give us the full protection we need.

So should we watch our steel industry go bust or take steps to save it by ignoring the world agreements and introduce more tariffs than what we are told we can?

Rwanda Flights.

In simple terms the EU judges have stepped in and told the government not to fly the illegal refugees to Rwanda - the thing is though they made their decision behind closed doors and not in a courtroom where the government could argue its case.

The government says Rwanda is safe for the illegals to be processed in, and the UK courts (including the Appeals Court) have determined that to be the case for now (a future court hearing is yet to be heard) but the European Court has ruled it isn't safe for the illegal refugees to go.

I may not have the greatest trust in the government but I've no reason to doubt the integrity of the judiciary (the government certainly hasn't been successful in a number of high profile cases recently (Colston statue, VIP Lane, Insulate Britain, etc) so I've no reason to doubt their findings.

You'd think the European Court would have liaised with our top judges about how they determined what they did but no, apparently they determined things independently and found the other way, behind closed doors - meaning no one knows on what evidence they had before them to make such a decision?


So do we just play by the rules or do we say something like 'you know what, we aren't actually doing anything bad are we, we just want NI not to suffer all the paperwork and delays, we don't want to be facing unfair competition for our steel industry (which is needed in the national interest no matter what it costs us to keep running), and we back our judges to be fair and impartial and we don't want to be bound by European judges in Brussels telling us they are better at determining what is legal and what isn't!'.

Well what should we do?

And is now with the war in Ukraine and everybody in the west and EU trying to show a united face, the time to be doing it?

The problem is Sluffy, that several countries, including notably Germany and the EU itself break International laws but for some reason we never hear it complained about. China ignores any law that causes it a problem, or agrees to laws only with considerable reservations yet for some reason, every time the UK attempts to extend, apply or amend a law, everyone jumps on it. Clearly if you sign up to a law you should abide by it but in terms of the NI Protocol, it was implemented with clauses which allow negotiation and steps to follow if those negotiations fail. For me the UK has tried to reach agreement with the EU to reduce red tape but has been completely rebuffed by the EU until we agree to sign up to alignment with their standards, which obviously we can’t do. Sadly their duplicity in continually insisting that they’ve made suggestions which the UK has rejected always fail to mention this and of course our EU facing media like the BBC and Sly, never challenge them on it. 

As for the steel tariffs, why should we stand by whilst nations falsely subsidising their steel exports destroy our own industry? The government is elected to protect our interests and if those are being challenged by unfair actions by others then quite rightly that should be challenged. Many of these rules and regulations were formed to support globalisation, especially within the EU and since globalisation itself is now disintegrating as countries realise it’s failures, so should many of the International agreements, even if that’s by breaking them.