Button wrote:Treaties, eh; I guess they seem like a good thing, or the best possible thing, at the time. I'm not saying that HMG is trying to get out of one unilaterally, since I doubt I have the mental energy to figure out what the Bill is about and, besides, "Treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation. Whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament and Parliament alone" - said a good egg recently. I just wonder if the French still think the Treaty of Le Touquet cuts the mustard for them.
Related question for you, Button, if you don't mind.....
I've been thinking the no deal blame game/mitigation logic through, and wonder whether it would be in the Government's interest to end the Le Touquet Agreement? My thought process being that I don't yet think it has registered with people that French controls cause traffic delay in Dover, and vice versa (at least theoretically). So if there were no French controls in Dover, the government could just wave everything onto the ferries, which set sail and then it becomes France's problem? The ferries would of course back up and you'd get delays - but government could say "delays in the Port of Calais is not our problem". You see where I am going with this, what's your view?
