This thread is in response to the confusion the MSM and MPs have created in relation to the accusation that the UK is breaking (Or prepared to break) international law. They have made sure that it is as confusing as possible (Shock). I am going to try explain what could happen.

Firstly, most people should understand that the UK had clear and unambiguous red-lines, the EU knew and accepted those red-lines, and made an offer in March 2018. Why are they unwilling to make the same offer today? Macron, toys everywhere! He can't afford more strikes. Fishing!

Also the last thing they want is a sovereign UK able to make whatever decision it likes to aid the recovery of our economy. So they are going to cut their face off to spite the nose - deliberate way round! They should just drop the 2 #BadFaith onditions that...

…are unacceptable (against our red lines) to the UK and get back on track with negotiating a trade deal that is in the interest of all the citizens of the EU France, will lose fishing either way! Let's say they don’t, and we go down the arbitration route, what does it mean?

Well, either one or both sides would have to believe that the agreement has been breached and then bring a case, to what court or body, I have no idea! However, I think that in this instance we have as much ground as the EU do for stating it has breached the terms of the WA.

The previous video the guy is wrong, "England" does have an independent judiciary, although lately I can see why one would think that it did not.

The EU want ECJ in control, here we are at the start of this process. Red Line! They knew this. So how can they change their offer?

The UK has long been considered the place where international disputes are resolved, and has applied and will get membership again to all bodies, if we don’t because the EU wants us out, I don't know what dispute mechanism they will use. https://bit.ly/2RccoOt 

Citizens’ rights have never been an issue. Ever. Hyperbole, and May was stupid to pretend they were a "card" to play, we would never have deported anyone! The money, well we always pay our debts. These areas are not in dispute because we do uphold our word!

The only part that will be in dispute (Potentially) is the NI protocol. So here is how I understand it. First, Google is not your friend, why? You will get lost down a maze of different legal points, that are not…

… relevant to what you are looking for, firstly, no one knows how the dispute will be arbitrated, by who etc… however, we can speculate based on the norms of arbitration. It will be close to what I am about to describe, but maybe not.

Some type of arbitration will be decided if deemed necessary. The first thing that will be asked is for both sides to try and renegotiate that section (More chance of Diane answering a question) if they cannot then they will pick a list of 25 individuals each. The other side...

…will choose (I think) 3 of each other’s list. If one side says no one on one of the lists is acceptable than the court of arbitration will pick for them, so it is best not to try and argue that case.

Possible answer https://bit.ly/2Fr7sTq 

(Nope, no jurisdiction).

From there a decision (after both sides present their arguments obviously) will be reached within 12 months, or if it can be argued there is a need for a faster response 6 months However, the EU will become weak here, as nothing will change in that period to how NI is run!

Part of the UKs defence could be that during the arbitration period the UK has managed to successfully implement a "no trade deal" without compromising the Act of the Union and the internal market of the UK - and then ask the EU to show/prove that there are...

…issues with the integrity of the SM and that the border has not turned into a smuggler’s paradise. (You know, like it was when Ireland used to help the IRA run guns over it). However, let us say they disagree, what can the arbitration court impose?

A fine would be the starting point. The amount of that fine would depend entirely on what the breach was, if the EU proved it had lost billions in tariffs (It won't prove that) then the fine is going to make them whole etc… it can also then enforce the treaty. However, this...

…gets tricky! The Arbitration court whoever it is could not just say "follow the treaty" it would have to be precise on what that meant, what has to be implemented if anyone has read the WA and the links to the PD and the respect of both the SM and UK’s SM - then they know…

…this is not an easy task. Does anyone really know what it means, there will be checks imposed potentially, if there is a need to, but not on common things that are meant just for the UK, and at the border, there will be no checks, even though the goods will be meant for the...

…EU"But that is because NI will be following the SM rules" well, no, no it will not, because a treaty cannot breach a treaty can it! Also, level playing field and fisheries, that is why we are where we are! The EU is not a level playing field!

It pays farmers not to farm, makes sure France can dominate in agriculture, even though they are so inefficient and poor at it, and a whole host of other little perks for member states, Germany for instance have an underinflated currency making it more…

…competitive than it should be. That is not a "level playing field" - if we choose to give our farmers the same level of subsidies the EU give France, they would say that is "bad faith" and try to stop it, yet we would only be doing what they do?

As for fisheries, again, this will become a nightmare, because we have made our position clear and unambiguous from the start - the fact that the EU are trying to maintain the same access is to keep France happy. Who are going to suffer a huge…

…hit to their fishing industry like we did. It is only a tiny proportion of GDP now, but it has the potential to provide so many jobs, and so much more. We are at the turning point for the UK and I would prefer for the EU to accept it is over with grace...

…however, they have made it clear they are unable to do that in the last few days. Especially when they outright came out and called the UK a threat. We are, and we should be maybe, just maybe, you will start making better laws so you can keep up!

This ramble has been made to try and explain what is likely to happen if we do "break international law" none of the end of the world like portrayed, and it happens all the time!

What annoys me, is why MPs are so quick to defend the EU? They have clearly acted in #EUBadFaith?