Quote:
Originally Posted by wraymond
As a non-lawyer I do not have the forensic knowledge worth chancing my neck. But I wouldn't think so. Considering the hectic atmosphere of the time then, all kinds of things had importance of varying degree and understanding. However there is no doubt that, as mentioned above, the treaty exists at least with regard to French liabilities. Unless, of course, anyone can establish differently. Hasten thee to Wicki I guess.
However, taken together with the historic, or should that be histrionic, repeated action of French lorry drivers and similar with the French fishing fleet, nothing seems out of bounds between 'allies'. Except on our side perhaps. Maybe we were seduced into compliance in 39/45.
|
Thank you. So, would you say that the first three of the four points in BJ's letter to Macron fall under this particular treaty?
Putting aside the fact that the Frenchies are bad, would you say that putting the head of state to head of state level letter on Twitter was a sincere and wise action or merely intended to appease supporters at home by making suggestions that the other side could not possibly accept?
The reason I am having difficulty, apart from quite possibly being one of the uninitiated, is that I was taught never to put something in the public domain until discussion and agreement with the other side of a proposed negotiation is in place unless it is merely to score points for non-constructive motives.