I cant disagree with the examples that you have used there.
However, if either side is going to start re-writing their own rules to trash those which have been AGREED by all parties, what is the point of any agreement.
As for Blair and the Iraq war, do you think that Boris would go against his idol
Trump would ask for 100 warheads and Boris would probably suggest that he'd have 500 by the end of the month and then provide him with a couple of boxes of water pistols.
Ultimately, we cant have the support of the USA without doing as we are told - but, I'm sure that you know that.

Okay, let's say we only care about the consequences of law-breaking, rather than it being, in of itself, a bad thing. The EU is powerful and the WTO is pretty toothless. UK prisoners are not many people's top political priority, but eventually the UK did comply with the 2005 ruling, under May. The Irag war was a fiasco in a lot of ways, but we had the US on our side, and like the EU they're powerful.
There might be legal action against us, but that isn't even one of the main problems.
Unless we back down spectacularly, with full bells and whistles contrition, how can the EU trust we won't renege on what we might want to negotiate next? Pelosi isn't freelancing - the Irish-American lobby will kill off any deal with the US, whoever wins the Presidential election, if this goes ahead. No great loss, given how one-sided it was going to be, to be fair.
The UK, as a point of principle, won't commit to anything the EU asks for - including maintaining food standards or even committing to different ones. The border down the Irish sea, which we effin' chose from the only three realistic options available, is among the least of the issues for our agriculture sector if we can't export food to the rest of the EU single market. Even if they made some sort of exception for NI - which I'd hope/expect they would on humanitarian grounds.

The ERG are running Boris now, it seems, probably more than their arch-enemy Classic Dom. Those dudes have been locking themselves in rooms together to reinforce each others lunacy for a lot of years, and it is clearly potent.

Here's a quote from Dom from last year, from his blog:
Those of you in the narcissist-delusional subset of the ERG who have spent the last three years scrambling for the 810 Today slot while spouting gibberish about trade and the law across SW1 — i.e exactly the contemptible behaviour that led to your enforced marginalisation during the referendum and your attempt to destroy Vote Leave — you are also in the pirate category. You were useful idiots for Remain during the campaign and with every piece of bull**** from Bill Cash et al you have helped only Remain for three years. Remember how you WELCOMED the backstop as a ‘triumph’ in December 2017 when it was obvious to everybody who knew what was going on — NOT the Cabinet obviously — that this effectively ended the ‘negotiations’? Remember how Bernard Jenkin wrote on ConHome that he didn’t have to ‘ruin his weekend’ reading the document to know it was another success for the natural party of government — bringing to mind very clearly how during the referendum so many of you guys were too busy shooting or skiing or chasing girls to do any actual work. You should be treated like a metastasising tumour and excised from the UK body politic.

If you were the UK would you trust the EU not to break their own side of the bargain e.g. fishing - come on let's be realistic here. There is huge mistrust on both side and for justifiable reasons.

How can the UK commit to a future that is completely uncertain - is the EU committing to anything other than what its current standards on food are? What if we decide we want higher standards than in the EU?

The EU set down the minimum food standards they expect for food stuffs to enter the EU so what is the problem - we don't hit those standards we can't export to the EU. Have we indicated that these standards are beyond us? Why are they not asking the same question of the US, Canada, China etc.

What the EU can't do is dictate the standards of food we export to everywhere else outside of the EU which it seems to want to do?

Ireland is an interesting one - should the rest of the UK suffer because a few gangsters want to use religion as a smokescreen for a host of illegal activities? As I have said before its Hotel California unless you tackle the Irish issue and accept the consequences.

This row is the last roll of the dice for the likes of Blair and Major - make it so difficult to operate that we all give up and accept the previous status quo. I'm sure the EU expected to steamroller us as they did to May - that a trade deal was so important that we would give anything to get it - as many on here thought - perhaps they have had a nasty shock at our resilience?

I trust the EU to pursue their own collective interest, and I expect them to do so with some degree of basic competence. Over a time horizon of several years. Their interests will generally be best served by respecting their treaty obligations.

I expect the UK to pursue Boris Johnson's personal interests, and I expect us to do so with some degree of political ineptitude. Over a time horizon of several days. At one point, I thought there might be some coherent plan hidden within the chaos and bluster. After this, it is clearly just BJ flailing madly and wrapping himself ever tighter in the web of his varied deceits. I didn't think he'd be able to do this, but I clearly didn't realise how far the parliamentary Conservative party had devolved.

I think the problems may be:

1. We're unwilling to make any commitments to the EU (I doubt they'd trust them now, anyway), as this would represent a surrender of sovereignty to the ERG loons who hold the balance of power. Without such commitments the EU won't put us on their best friends safe food list - which'll probably be judged on a case by case basis, I imagine, rather than meeting narrowly defined criteria, to give them flexibility. While there's a strong cutting nose off to spite face argument, if the UK won't indicate our intentions to their satisfaction, they're not obliged. If it is chucking their weight around, that is less pleasant - but our government has been open about playing chicken. Can't really cry if our bluff is called and it turns out we're not holding the better cards, can we? What the EU asks of the US, China, Canada etc. isn't really any of our business unless it impacts on any deal we might agree - the EU is independent of the UK as well as vice versa.

2. BJ promised the ERG he'd put his deal in the bin rather than the oven to get them to support it. There are so many flaws in that plan, that'd feel like a mad conspiracy theory if Bernard Jenkin hadn't claimed it to be true... and BJ weren't a man noted for his dishonesty and limited grasp of object permanence.

As a pedantic point, although there is a sectarian dimension to the previous conflict and remaining tensions in Northern Ireland, I think it is primarily a nationalist divide. Anyway, while it perhaps isn't fair that Brexit requires hard choices with difficult consequences, the fact is it does. There have always been three choices regarding NI - May's backstop ('Hotel California'), Johnson's frontstop (the 'unexpected' GB–NI problems that were repeatedly pointed out at the time) or a customs border on the island of Ireland (threat to peace). We could face up to one of those and accept the consequences - but this Prime Minister apparently won't. Effectively he's asking the EU to make the choice for us, so he can blame them. Yay for independence!

Can you show us a track record the EU, or the UK for that matter, has for breaking international treaties? You've put it out there as a deflection so come up with some evidence or it will be dismissed as the seemingly hack point it looks like. And before you go there again, learn the difference between WTO rulings and international treaties.

And again you come up with false news from the right wing press, taken as if it were true. It's depressing the levels of misinformation that get spread like this.

Johnson was given a chance to highlight the part of the agreement that could impact food deliveries, what did he do sit on his hands. I can’t believe that you would fall for this lie because you know what they say “You know when Johnson is lying his mouth is open.”
With regards fish yes the quota was doubled after being agreed not be the EU but the U.K.

So are the EU allowing the US to use Shannon airport as a means of moving troops around between war zones?

So you are saying all the MPs and ministers like Buckland coming out and stating that the EU have threatened to disrupt trade - especially food stuff - between the UK and the NI are all telling lies?

What latest bit of misinformation is this? The Republic of Ireland government is responsible for what military traffic goes through their air space and airports. You're dragging the EU into it for some reason, did you read that on Guido or Facebook or something??

is that a serious question?
Your party has been lying so much they've now started disowning the withdrawal agreement lies they told before because they are so inconvenient. You couldn't make it up.

I absolutely acknowledge the possibility that they are just extremely stupid.

I would say that their statements can be divided into:

1. No poop Sherlock - this an agreement you chose, advocated and voted for. How can you claim to have been unaware? Are you dishonest, incompetent or both?

2. Misrepresentation. I don’t know whether suggesting it is deliberate would be more or less disrespectful.

I think I can safely call Boris Johnson an habitual liar without fear of the even the UK’s draconian libel laws. In my opinion he is also unsuited to his role as Prime Minister... and nearly every other form of paid employment.

I completely agree with your last paragraph.

Perhaps the deal was signed in good faith but the EU out thought Boris - not difficult - and the EU knew all along what their bargaining position was going to be i.e. we will disrupt your trade if you don't do as we say. Let's face it the EU have a way of not accepting certain adverse decisions e.g. Eire and the Nice & Lisbon treaties. They have history - were they ever going to negotiate in good faith towards a deal?

Boris knew this was going to happen longer term and believed it was no big deal - that I can believe