H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 It isn't a hard question. Are we a successor state of the CDU? You say we are going to get a share of the assets, so therefore, are we a successor state? No. Quite why you have linked the two together, I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 For fucks sake! Of course intelligence, talent and a ten inch cock are all assets, but try defining that in law or in settlement. Why do you insist on being so deliberately obtuse? Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. Like that kind of settlement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I don't think you understand this do you? I'm pretty certain you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I'm pretty certain you don't.Incidentally, I could be wrong, but was it not you that schooled Ad Lib and HB on this issue on the last thread? Which no doubt they will have no memory of. Memory being such a fickle thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Incidentally, I could be wrong, but was it not you that schooled Ad Lib and HB on this issue on the last thread? Which no doubt they will have no memory of. Memory being such a fickle thing. Nah, I didn't participate in the last thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. Like that kind of settlement? The Vienna Convention isn't relevant as the UK isn't a signatory, and it's not customary international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I'm pretty certain you don't. Well, you have already thoroughly embarrassed yourself on this thread on legal matters, so it's no surprise that you are willing to do so again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 The Vienna Convention isn't relevant as the UK isn't a signatory, and it's not customary international law. So you're saying that the rump UK will deny Scotland successor state status? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 The Vienna Convention isn't relevant as the UK isn't a signatory, and it's not customary international law.Really? Really now? Thats funny, because you and Ad Lib haven't been shy in mentioning it, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Well, you have already thoroughly embarrassed yourself on this thread on legal matters, so it's no surprise that you are willing to do so again. Wholly incorrect, I've barely mentioned legal matters, you're either thinking of someone else or making it up as badly as Better Together do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. Like that kind of settlement? Just for funsies though, perhaps you could link to exactly this part of the treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 So you're saying that the rump UK will deny Scotland successor state status? Again, you understand nothing about this. Please stop. It's not rUK who will deny Scotland successor state "status". rUK will seek to be recognised as the sole continuing state on Scotland's secession. It's the international community who will determine the validity of this claim. Scotland are welcome to seek to be the continuing state also. No one is stopping them from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Wholly incorrect, I've barely mentioned legal matters, you're either thinking of someone else or making it up as badly as Better Together do. Yes, very good. Whilst I can understand why you wish to airbrush your contribution to this thread, let's look at your 11th April contribution shall we :- "As far as NATO and the EU go, either there are two successor states and we have automatic/negotiated membership or we're a completely new nation with none of the obligations and treaties of the UK, which means we have none of the debt either. The truth is that there will be a ton of negotiation and quid pro quo and we'll end up with membership of both and a fair share of the debt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Just for funsies though, perhaps you could link to exactly this part of the treaty. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf Fill your boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Anyone else have the feeling that christmas has just come early on this thread! I wonder if Ad Lib, a man who has cited the Vienna Convention many, many, many times will disagree with his fellow law expert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf Fill your boots. No, I am aware of how to google. You bolded this :- Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. I want you to show me exactly where it says that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Again, you understand nothing about this. Please stop. It's not rUK who will deny Scotland successor state "status". rUK will seek to be recognised as the sole continuing state on Scotland's secession. It's the international community who will determine the validity of this claim. Scotland are welcome to seek to be the continuing state also. No one is stopping them from doing so. You don't know what a continuator state is, do you? A continuator state is a continuation of the current state (will continue to use the name "UK" for instance), a successor state succeeds the old state but inherits a share of the assets. Including treaties and membership of international bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 And now I see a spot of desperate "refer to my signature" coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I wonder if Ad Lib, a man who has cited the Vienna Convention many, many, many times will disagree with his fellow law expert? He won't. Ad Lib is well aware that the Vienna Convention doesn't bind the UK, as we are not a signatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Whilst I, at some point in the past, mistook one iteration of the Vienna Convention for another, the former which the UK had ratified but the latter which they hadn't, I admitted my mistake immediately, and withdrew that specific line of my argument, continuing to rely on the international legal norms not enunciated in specific treaties, but which broadly correlates anyway, and which at no point ever endorsed Scheffer's "continuator state theory" that has zero basis in law or precedent. Note that this experience conflicts with a long-standing claim of xbl's, never retracted, that I don't fess up when I get things wrong. On the other hand, when he makes a false statement, and gets called out on it, his record is very poor indeed. H_B, on the other hand, never sought to rely on the Vienna Convention to argue the (non)continuation of international rights and duties following an independence event. He relied solely on the precedents and normative legal framework. I am not drawing arbitrary lines as to what are assets. There is a difference between being an asset in the political sense (e.g. "He's a cracking Secretary of State who enhances our international image: he's a real asset"), and being an actual asset when we're talking about the division, in law, of assets and liabilities between sovereign states (e.g. "That gold is worth £36billion and those RBS shares are worth £0.50. I want 10% of them or the proceeds"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.