Nixing international treaties

Post by **spot** » Tue May 08, 2018 1:10 pm

First the Paris Accord, now Iran.

Events have taken an interesting twist with this Tweet from the EU president, Donald Tusk:

"Policies of @realDonaldTrump on #IranDeal and trade will meet a united European approach. EU leaders will tackle both issues at the summit in Sofia next week."

Are we about to see Europe refuse to impose the newly-announced US sanctions on Iran? And if it does, will President Trump take countermeasures against Europe, financial or otherwise?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 09, 2018 5:28 am

Our stand-in lame duck volunteer Prime Minister gave a strange announcement in the House today, referring to the Iran Agreement in the past tense and saying it had been a good thing, and that the European leaders would talk about it. My impression is that she was avoiding any commitment to break from the traditional British role of US lapdog, and that any company in the UK which traded with Iran would be doing so with no political cover from US penalties at all. It has much the same smell as the Blair Bush relationship when what we actually need at the moment in foreign policy is another Harold Wilson prepared to say no to the White House.

America seems bent on attaining a position no other country could impose on it, one of Us (And Israel) Against Everyone Else with the usual list of spineless hangers-on (cowering dependencies in Central America, the UK, and a few right-wing ex-Soviet Bloc intransigents like Poland).

The Koreans are just going to have to reach unification despite US involvement in discussions.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed May 09, 2018 11:05 am

First of there has never been any doubt in my mind that President Obama bought and paid for a really horrible deal.

With that said he did put his stamp on the deal and walked away with phone and pen in hand. It is just too bad he did not get Congress to validate the agreement, making it law.

Reading and listening to all the commentary on Trump's withdrawing us from the deal just is just a lot of noise. I have no idea if it is a good move or not, but sticking it to Iran does give me some satisfaction.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 09, 2018 12:13 pm

And America will impose financial penalties on Europe for continuing with the Iran deal? I can see why I'm looking forward to that but I'm not sure why you do.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 10, 2018 2:44 am

If the US thinks it can abrogate treaties whenever it feels like it why would anyone make a new treaty with them although as tude dog points out this agreement was never validated by congress so wasn't as formal treatyas such but nafta and other trade agreements were so why should they be trusted to keep their word in the future? If tude dog was iranian I suspect he might now be calling for the development of nuclear weapons to defend against an aggressive US who also, it looks like, working in the interests of saudi arabia which has ended upo as the most poweful state in the middle east without lifting a finger itself and who got away with sponsoring a terrorist attack on the US. I thibnk in the future people will look back at this time just as we look back at ww1 and wonder WTF werte people thinking.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 10, 2018 3:54 am

I was thinking along the same sort of lines but the conclusion I came to was that the US was going Isolationist. I don't know is this is even intentional but it is in effect what seems to be happening: They are hugely reducing their diplomatic capacity and withdrawing from foreign commitments - even trying to build border walls...

There's an echo there too of the UK's brexit. That's also isolationist. I also fear you are right and our pathetic government will sign any deal with the US because it's all there is.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 10, 2018 6:12 am

And America will impose financial penalties on Europe for continuing with the Iran deal? I can see why I'm looking forward to that but I'm not sure why you do.

It's not about Europe.

Boeing, Airbus to lose deals with Trump's Iran sanctions

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 10, 2018 6:36 am

gmc;1519155 wrote: If the US thinks it can abrogate treaties whenever it feels like it why would anyone make a new treaty with them although as tude dog points out this agreement was never validated by congress so wasn't as formal treatyas such but nafta and other trade agreements were so why should they be trusted to keep their word in the future?

The good idea is don't rely solely on the word of the president as he hasn't the authority to make it official.

gmc;1519155 wrote: If tude dog was iranian I suspect he might now be calling for the development of nuclear weapons to defend against an aggressive US who also, it looks like, working in the interests of saudi arabia which has ended upo as the most poweful state in the middle east without lifting a finger itself and who got away with sponsoring a terrorist attack on the US. I thibnk in the future people will look back at this time just as we look back at ww1 and wonder WTF werte people thinking.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu May 10, 2018 8:30 am

This just in.. Trump has decided to pull out of the Louisiana Purchase agreement. So long New Orleans..LOL

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:08 pm

YZGI;1519160 wrote: This just in.. Trump has decided to pull out of the Louisiana Purchase agreement. So long New Orleans..LOL

Oh my!

Post by **spot** » Thu May 10, 2018 12:33 pm

Hasn't there been a treaty since 1812 by which the US abandons its territorial claim on all of Canada in exchange for Great Britain agreeing not to wage war on America? That can go for a start. And unlike Iran, we have subs-full of nukes.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 10, 2018 3:43 pm

i am puzzled how he can pull out of a treaty which Congress approved.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 10, 2018 5:52 pm

I thought I saw somewhere that Congress never did approve the Iran deal?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 10, 2018 6:01 pm

LarsMac;1519171 wrote: i am puzzled how he can pull out of a treaty which Congress approved.

Whatever that means.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 10, 2018 6:42 pm

Clodhopper;1519172 wrote: I thought I saw somewhere that Congress never did approve the Iran deal?

Apparently congress never did approve it. The senate attempted to block that deal, which failed.

I stand corrected.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 11, 2018 12:22 am

tude dog;1519158 wrote: It's not about Europe.

Boeing, Airbus to lose deals with Trump's Iran sanctions

It is if you happen to be european.

The good idea is don't rely solely on the word of the president as he hasn't the authority to make it official.

He does and he has, as you point out the iran deal was not a formal treaty. The republicans control both houses if they want to abrogate a treaty there is nothinmg stopping them. Right wingers are not noted for actually being able to think through the consequences of their actions as by and large they tend to think their opinions are the only ones that count.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 11, 2018 5:26 am

tude dog;1519158 wrote: It's not about Europe.

Boeing, Airbus to lose deals with Trump's Iran sanctions

I'm left wondering where you think Airbus is located.

I'm entirely content for President Trump to penalize US companies if they break his sanctions law and trade with any embargoed country, but I'm damned if I'll see such policies applied to non-US companies too. An isolationist US is in keeping with President Trump's election commitments. An American Empire demanding financial penalties from elsewhere in the world is predictable but also illegal. Enough with the braggadocio.

And I bet you $10 that the Airbus 100-plane deal gets completed, too. Why any country would want to follow America's lead after the last thirty years of world-domination catastrophe beats me.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri May 11, 2018 12:47 pm

The timing couldn't have been worse. What sort of message does this send just before sitting down with North Korea to reach an agreement? The people in the administration that actually know what they're doing must have been really frustrated.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 12, 2018 10:23 am

gmc;1519175 wrote: It is if you happen to be european.

He does and he has, as you point out the iran deal was not a formal treaty. The republicans control both houses if they want to abrogate a treaty there is nothinmg stopping them. Right wingers are not noted for actually being able to think through the consequences of their actions as by and large they tend to think their opinions are the only ones that count.

This is a crude way for me to put it.

Congress would not have approved the deal so Obama signed a deal anyway.

Brooklyn Bridge anyone?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 12, 2018 10:35 am

tude dog;1519184 wrote: This is a crude way for me to put it.

Congress would not have approved the deal so Obama signed a deal anyway.

Brooklyn Bridge anyone?

It was not a bad deal. None of what the Fright-Wingers have constantly whined about regarding the deal is true.

And Trump spends too much time listening to them.

How we let this moron have the wheel, ...

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 12, 2018 10:45 am

spot;1519176 wrote: I'm left wondering where you think Airbus is located.

Without looking it up I know it is some Europen endeavor. So I look it up and this is what I know, Airbus

spot;1519176 wrote: I'm entirely content for President Trump to penalize US companies if they break his sanctions law and trade with any embargoed country, but I'm damned if I'll see such policies applied to non-US companies too. An isolationist US is in keeping with President Trump's election commitments. An American Empire demanding financial penalties from elsewhere in the world is predictable but also illegal. Enough with the braggadocio.

OK, be damned if you want.

spot;1519176 wrote: And I bet you $10 that the Airbus 100-plane deal gets completed, too. Why any country would want to follow America's lead after the last thirty years of world-domination catastrophe beats me.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 12, 2018 12:19 pm

LarsMac;1519185 wrote: It was not a bad deal. None of what the Fright-Wingers have constantly whined about regarding the deal is true.

And Trump spends too much time listening to them.

How we let this moron have the wheel, ...

I am no fan of the Don, but then no secret I believe we have been ill-served for a long time.

1.7 BILLION DOLLAR CASH

What was it

RANSOM

BRIBE

BLACKMAIL

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

LOVE OF IRAN

?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat May 12, 2018 1:38 pm

tude dog;1519189 wrote: I am no fan of the Don, but then no secret I believe we have been ill-served for a long time.

1.7 BILLION DOLLAR CASH

What was it

RANSOM

BRIBE

BLACKMAIL

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

LOVE OF IRAN

?

As I recall, that was estimated interest on the Iranian bank accounts and other assets in the US that we had frozen for x years. I could be wrong, of course.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 12, 2018 2:19 pm

The Americans break their treaties with their own indiginous people, putting oil pipelines across their lands, supposedly protected by Treaty, and polluting their water supplies. If they can't honour the Treaties with its own people, why should anyone think they would honour them with other countries.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 12, 2018 2:28 pm

Wandrin;1519192 wrote: As I recall, that was estimated interest on the Iranian bank accounts and other assets in the US that we had frozen for x years. I could be wrong, of course.

That is true.

Iranian frozen assets

I remember when they were first frozen, never really kept up with it being so many years. Thing is, it was ours to hold and I see no benefit to us giving them the estimated accumulated interest.

And why cash??

How did we benefit?

Oh, wait, ransom for a lousy nuke deal.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 12, 2018 2:29 pm

FourPart;1519193 wrote: The Americans break their treaties with their own indiginous people, putting oil pipelines across their lands, supposedly protected by Treaty, and polluting their water supplies. If they can't honour the Treaties with its own people, why should anyone think they would honour them with other countries.

Says you.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 12, 2018 3:07 pm

tude dog;1519196 wrote: Says you.

Well, as of 1978, there was one Indigenous Tribe with territory or a reservation within the US borders who had never experienced a treaty being broken by the US government.

That was the Seminole Tribe of South Florida.

Reason: As of 1978 Th Seminoles were the only tribe who had never signed a treaty with the US Government.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sun May 13, 2018 1:08 pm

LarsMac;1519197 wrote: Well, as of 1978, there was one Indigenous Tribe with territory or a reservation within the US borders who had never experienced a treaty being broken by the US government.

That was the Seminole Tribe of South Florida.

Reason: As of 1978 Th Seminoles were the only tribe who had never signed a treaty with the US Government.

Just doing a brief search apparently Seminoles have reached some accommodation as they have several reservations and gambling interests. Some Seminole live in Oklahoma, others live in Florida.

To me that is interesting.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun May 13, 2018 1:15 pm

tude dog;1519208 wrote: Just doing a brief search apparently Seminoles have reached some accommodation as they have several reservations and gambling interests. Some Seminole live in Oklahoma, others live in Florida.

To me that is interesting.

Yup, it is.

The Seminoles that made their way to Oklahoma were some that surrendered after the second Seminole War. They were packed off to OK via train.

A number of Seminoles retreated into the swamps and remained there long after the third war, and the Gummint agreed to leave them alone because nobody really wanted that swampland, anyway. The finally made a treaty in the mid 70s so they could take advantage of the Casino Craze.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 13, 2018 3:04 pm

If only the US So far as I can make out the only reason republicans and trump don't like the iran deal us that it was made by a black man. He's (trump that is) not suggesting an alternative that gives any recourse except war and backing a nuclear armed israeli state to boot if you were iranian would you not be thinking the only way to be safe from attack is to have nuclear weapons? If the iranians call the US bluff are you really going to invade iran? Which if it is not a bluff is what will need to happen what do you think russia and china will do if you go to war in iran?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... nald-trump

I think we should retaliate in kind and stop selling them the cars european manufacturers make in the states and stop buying boeing aeroplanes.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 20, 2018 11:57 am

tude dog;1519196 wrote: Says you.

That is something that you can check the veracity of it's not an opinion it's a fact. Do you watch fox news all the time or something? The fact that the US has a somewhat less than glorious past and has done many things especially in regard to it's indigenoue peoples that would not be tolerated nowadays is surely not a surprise to you. .

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 21, 2018 1:06 am

I wouldn't be surprised to find that many Americans rather pass on that one. I can't claim to know much, but what I have picked up is unremittingly grim. I suppose my question is can anyone tell me anything good about the treatment of Native American peoples? I don't think we're blameless, either: Didn't we sign a treaty with Pocahonta's lot and then just ignore it when inconvenient?

I have to admit that although I've read a fair bit of history over the years I've never spent a lot of time on the Opium War...

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon May 21, 2018 11:18 am

gmc;1519333 wrote: That is something that you can check the veracity of it's not an opinion it's a fact.

Say it again.

Before there was the United States, there was Europe. You all got the ball rolling. You have no right to get all high and mighty. Read your own history.

Forget broken treaties, often it was just straight out conquest.

gmc;1519333 wrote: Do you watch fox news all the time or something? The fact that the US has a somewhat less than glorious past and has done many things especially in regard to it's indigenoue peoples that would not be tolerated nowadays is surely not a surprise to you. .

What does all that have to do with the fact Iran accepted the signature of President Obama, not a binding treaty?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 21, 2018 2:16 pm

tude dog;1519347 wrote: Say it again.

Before there was the United States, there was Europe. You all got the ball rolling. You have no right to get all high and mighty. Read your own history.

Forget broken treaties, often it was just straight out conquest.

What does all that have to do with the fact Iran accepted the signature of President Obama, not a binding treaty?

Whose coming it high and mighty? We're quite well aware of our own history the difference is we don't pretend our colonial history was anything else but naked aggression and exploitation of weaker nations although youn will always getb those on the right who like to pretend otherwise just as they like to pretend the windrush scandal was oops a daisy a slight slip up rather than naked racism.

Your comment "says you" in response to four part's comment rather implied you disagreed with the what he said and thought it a staement of opinion rather than fact.

The Americans break their treaties with their own indiginous people, putting oil pipelines across their lands, supposedly protected by Treaty, and polluting their water supplies. If they can't honour the Treaties with its own people, why should anyone think they would honour them with other countries.

If it was factually incorrect then correct it just pretending it's a matter of opinion is pointless and not really worthy of you.

Why should anyone trust the word of a US president when the next one that comes along can just ignore what was agreed? Forby that why would any country ebter a trade agreement when one of the oarties will turn round and abrogate it in effect telling the other parties to suck it up?

Look on the bright side at least you haven't had to put up with the never ending wedding enlightened only by the daily mail tying itself in knots trying not to complain about prince harry marrying a person of mixed race, bad enough she is american, or is it canadian they can hardly control the vitriol flag waving liars that they are.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 21, 2018 2:49 pm

Before there was the United States, there was Europe. You all got the ball rolling. You have no right to get all high and mighty. Read your own history.

The Opium War, the Amritsar Massacre, the Black and Tans...generally we acknowledge atrocities did happen and don't try to duck them. It's not a case of high and mighty, it's a case of looking at the whole picture. chuckle. And if you are talking about the time before Columbus they were your ancestors too - assuming you aren't pure Native American.

I wonder if it might be something to do with the Wild West being a period of myth and legend for most Americans, viewed more like Arthur and the Round Table than, say, the British Empire is? Manifest Destiny is justification for conquest, pure and simple, it seems to me.

And it is relevant it seems to me to question how far you can trust treaties with the US on the grounds that the Native Americans didn't do very well and signing anything with the President is only the first hurdle, though with the whole political establishment under Republican control maybe that doesn't apply here. It's especially relevant when we're looking at a trade deal. Personally I'd say anyone signing a deal with President Trump was insane or desperate but then that sums up right wing brexiters whose idea it is.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon May 21, 2018 4:27 pm

Clodhopper;1519350 wrote: The Opium War, the Amritsar Massacre, the Black and Tans...generally we acknowledge atrocities did happen and don't try to duck them. It's not a case of high and mighty, it's a case of looking at the whole picture. chuckle. And if you are talking about the time before Columbus they were your ancestors too - assuming you aren't pure Native American.

I wonder if it might be something to do with the Wild West being a period of myth and legend for most Americans, viewed more like Arthur and the Round Table than, say, the British Empire is? Manifest Destiny is justification for conquest, pure and simple, it seems to me.

Get over it. We have enough problems without rehashing past injustices.

Clodhopper;1519350 wrote: And it is relevant it seems to me to question how far you can trust treaties with the US on the grounds that the Native Americans didn't do very well

It started when we were still British.

Clodhopper;1519350 wrote: and signing anything with the President is only the first hurdle,

It was no secret that all US treaties must be approved by Congress, and everybody knows that.

Clodhopper;1519350 wrote: though with the whole political establishment under Republican control maybe that doesn't apply here. It's especially relevant when we're looking at a trade deal. Personally I'd say anyone signing a deal with President Trump was insane or desperate but then that sums up right wing brexiters whose idea it is.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon May 21, 2018 5:21 pm

gmc;1519349 wrote: Whose coming it high and mighty? We're quite well aware of our own history the difference is we don't pretend our colonial history was anything else but naked aggression and exploitation of weaker nations although youn will always getb those on the right who like to pretend otherwise just as they like to pretend the windrush scandal was oops a daisy a slight slip up rather than naked racism.

Your comment "says you" in response to four part's comment rather implied you disagreed with the what he said and thought it a staement of opinion rather than fact.

Bringing up old history irrelevant to the issue is my problem. I do owe Fourpart an apology for being such a flippant answer.

gmc;1519349 wrote: If it was factually incorrect then correct it just pretending it's a matter of opinion is pointless and not really worthy of you.

gmc;1519349 wrote: Why should anyone trust the word of a US president when the next one that comes along can just ignore what was agreed? Forby that why would any country ebter a trade agreement when one of the oarties will turn round and abrogate it in effect telling the other parties to suck it up?

They all know what is going on. No secrets.

gmc;1519349 wrote: Look on the bright side at least you haven't had to put up with the never ending wedding enlightened only by the daily mail tying itself in knots trying not to complain about prince harry marrying a person of mixed race, bad enough she is american, or is it canadian they can hardly control the vitriol flag waving liars that they are.

Oh please, There is just so much on our news. My wife watched it all on TV.

The only thing I found interesting is that the steering wheel is on the wrong side.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 21, 2018 10:59 pm

posted by tude dog

They all know what is going on. No secrets.

True but with a bullying US administration that seems to think other nations will just fall in to line what is more likely is that trade with other nations will become more important except for our pathetic sycophantic tory government we have just now who will be desperate tontake any deal going even if it leads to the destrution of our own food industry. One of the things americans object to is eu food labelling and food standards that stop us meat and agriculture products beung imprted - at least that's the way they see it.

Oh please, There is just so much on our news. My wife watched it all on TV.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 22, 2018 4:24 am

Get over it. We have enough problems without rehashing past injustices.

1) It isn't about justice or injustice at this point from a historical point of view, it's working out what REALLY happened, and how, and why.

2) Past injustices (real or imagined) are often a big motivator for current behaviour. If you want to understand why a group or nation reacts to you in a particular way then knowing the relevant parts of their history does help. The Dutch used to get on pretty well with the Germans before the WWs. Not so much now. Past injustices...(that's at a personal level. At governmental level they get on fine).

3) As far as I know, pretty much everywhere apart from the US if the Head of State signs an agreement that makes it legally binding. The deal is signed and that is that. It took a while for other nations to realise that the signature of the President means absolutely nothing except as a statement of personal preference.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 24, 2018 9:57 am

tude dog;1519351 wrote: Get over it. We have enough problems without rehashing past injustices.

It started when we were still British.

It was no secret that all US treaties must be approved by Congress, and everybody knows that.

I wonder if the native americans feel the injustice was in the past or is still something they are living with.

Yes congress has to approve treaties does that mean the president can just abrogate them without their agreement? I'm talking about the free trade agreements I'm well aware the iran agreement wasn't actually ratified as a treaty although as an outsider the main objections to obama's agreement with iran seems to be principally on him being coloured rather than what he actually did. The alternative is war at some point.

Trump is a ginger why no jokes about the ginger menace stalking the halls of democracy?

As far as I know, pretty much everywhere apart from the US if the Head of State signs an agreement that makes it legally binding. The deal is signed and that is that. It took a while for other nations to realise that the signature of the President means absolutely nothing except as a statement of personal preference.

No we're the same the prime minister cannot act without the agreement of parliament even if primus inter pares is a concept she finds difficult to grasp and seems to be determined to send to the dustbin of history.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:21 pm

No we're the same the prime minister cannot act without the agreement of parliament even if primus inter pares is a concept she finds difficult to grasp and seems to be determined to send to the dustbin of history.

Yeah but it's not the PM, it's old Queenie who is HoS - by the time she signs it's done and dusted - isn't it? I thought - could be wrong - that it was the act of signing by the Queen that turned it into Law. And even with Maybe she turns up after everything is agreed, as a rule. Only if things get badly stuck and the officials can't sort it do the principals get involved. I don't know our exact process for sure - I just thought that the principle was that once the Heads of State or their official representatives signed that was it. If Parliamentary or Congressional approval was required, that should be obtained before the Heads of State made it legal...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:00 am

In the UK a law comes in to force when the queen signs it but it is purely symbolic she has no authority to refuse or amend the law should she ever refiuse to sign a bill passed by parliament the monarchy would cease to exist. The lords can amend a bill and send it back to the commons with amendments twice or three times I forget which but afte that the commons is sovereign and the law will pass with or without the lords consent.

The prime monister and cabiner have executive authority but it comes from parliament who can kick them out ant time they have a majority to vote for it. Theresa may with the brexit bill is trying to centralise more powers in westminster away from local authorities - if you want to know why see things like fracking and why they want tro overrule lopcal authorities and it's also undermining the devolution settlement for scotland and wales which they want to cdo simply because they are opposed rtom devbolution in any form. Thersa may is nbow being quite open about her intentions so far as devolution is concerned.

I see Arlene foeter the DUP leader will be leading an orange walk in fife. I don;t think she'll get relected in northern ireland hopefully a younger generation growing up without the troubles will not want rto see them coming back to Northern lreland.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:06 am

The underlying power of the Monarch is the fallback state if central London government fails, as it might in the event of a nuclear strike. The fallback government is under the direct control of the Monarchy and is overseen locally by the Lords Lieutenant of the counties, who would control both the civil and military resources to maintain order and coordinate to whatever extent is possible.

I agree that short of these provisions coming into force the monarchy stands above politics but by being head of the military, the civil government and the established church it blocks anyone else from those positions. And a very good thing too, if you ask me.

All of these advantages are a consequence of having an unwritten constitution. If we had to write it down we'd never agree to any of it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:47 am

I'd agree with you we're better off in many ways with an unwritten constitution but we do need laws and the likes of parliament to protect us from the abuse of power of those in power sadly it's a truism that the poor have no lawyers which is why so much is owned by so few and why stopping things like fracking devolves down to we can do it and we will pass laws to stop you stopping us. No one in this country agreed to give the oil companies and the like (coal steel etc) all the profit from exploiting all our natural resources we.ve just been conned in to thinking there's nothing we can do about it.

Trump is quite clearly abrogating international treaties with no regard for the long trem effects on his country. He's either doesn't care or is too thick to understand at least the americans have the right to turf him out at the next election in the UK our system is soo skewed there really is not much we can do to stop what is happening.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:42 pm

In theory the Monarch may refuse Assent by using the Reserve Powers to delay or veto a bill. However it has rarely been implemented - if ever in the past 100 years or so.