You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
The problem is, whatever parliament says, it can subsequently depart from. Doesn’t matter who said what at the time of the WA. Parliament has the legislative ability to change its mind, in essence.
We have a very recent example of the difficulties in an earlier parliament trying to limit what a later parliament can do. The fixed term parliament act specifically provided that you need a 2/3 majority of MPs to hold an early election. As became clear in the dog days of the last parliament, that was incapable of preventing a one line act saying ‘we’re having an election in December’ from being passed with a simple majority.
the point is, if parliament chooses to ignore the provisions of the WA, there is bugger all anyone else, the courts included, can do about it. that is not to say however that it can do so without there being real world consequences.
By the way, your last paragraph reads to me like you’re saying “I trust this government not to be a complete bunch of cunts”.
Speaking for myself, I don’t trust them that much.
Yes but only with regards to matters that effect the UK where indeed it is sovereign, but it is not sovereign with respect to the other party in an international agreement so unilateral legislation has no standing unless the other party gives consent.
Now the UK can go rogue and specifically ignore this, indeed it can cut all relations with Europe or do what the hell it likes but that just ends in chaos and for what? So we can plough billions of State Aid into tech companies and make them world beaters? Anyone think the EU or even the US will be allowing these State funded companies to operate within their borders after we have tossed diplomatic relations with 28 countries into the crapper?
It is a policy of diminishing returns. The reason we are getting these increasingly desperate moves is that we are stuck in a mess of our own creation and every way out is politically unpalatable. I know the Brexit Brains Trust think threatening the WA is showing steely resolve because how else can you explain a deal that went from an ‘oven ready Brexit and a great deal’ to ‘we have to junk this terrible deal’ in nine months. The point of being partisan is that you have to swallow contradictory ideas without batting an eye.
I think the Govt is more incompetent than cunts. I mean, yes, they are cunts but incompetence is more the worry :)
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
This is basically the way North Korea operates. You can do whjat the F you want - but don't expect to be seen as a leading world nation and for other countries to be interested in dealing with you if you can't play fair and keep your word. You end up and irrelevance (other than the extent to which you are a military threat).
Yes, that’s the consequence.
Legally, our Parliament has the power to act like a complete bunch of cunts. There is nobody to stop them from doing that other than themselves.
The rest of the world may find that dealing with this bunch of cunts is something they’d rather not do.
That’s what happens when you vote for a bunch of cunts.
Yep - oh the hypocrisy - lolOh for the happy halcyon days of civil servants working to scupper brexit while remainer mps scurry up the the despatch box with new bills and a mutual love-in with John Bercow.
Did someone ask earlier where all the tears are coming from??anybody working anywhere - especially working in/with government should have professional and moral scruples which Mr Jones clearly has and has exercised them in order for his political views not to be involved in a legal move - sadly the govt he works for is professionally, personally and morally bankrupt
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,723
Yes but only with regards to matters that effect the UK where indeed it is sovereign, but it is not sovereign with respect to the other party in an international agreement so unilateral legislation has no standing unless the other party gives consent.
Now the UK can go rogue and specifically ignore this, indeed it can cut all relations with Europe or do what the hell it likes but that just ends in chaos and for what? So we can plough billions of State Aid into tech companies and make them world beaters? Anyone think the EU or even the US will be allowing these State funded companies to operate within their borders after we have tossed diplomatic relations with 28 countries into the crapper?
It is a policy of diminishing returns. The reason we are getting these increasingly desperate moves is that we are stuck in a mess of our own creation and every way out is politically unpalatable. I know the Brexit Brains Trust think threatening the WA is showing steely resolve because how else can you explain a deal that went from an ‘oven ready Brexit and a great deal’ to ‘we have to junk this terrible deal’ in nine months. The point of being partisan is that you have to swallow contradictory ideas without batting an eye.
I think the Govt is more incompetent than cunts. I mean, yes, they are cunts but incompetence is more the worry :)
Even more so as they’re consciously incompetent, which makes them even bigger cunts.
I think we'll need Lord Pannick to consult on this one. The article I linked did say "But as the former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith pointed out, the 27 EU member states agreed to the terms of the Withdrawal Act as it was given Royal assent on January 23".@jaseirai Here's Vics expertise. Why you say he know fuck-nothing when he know fuck-all?
Delicious.....The answer is they will filter through the decent people and retain the ones with no professional standards and most likely strong partisan views - they will be over promoted and the net result is they will be badly advised and we will end up losing cases in court at great expense.
Perhaps we need to get Dominic Grieve involved again - there was a man that had no truck with acting with bias and self-interest - oh those really were halcyon days
Well - I am not judging Cummings as someone worthy of admiration or likely to be someone that I would like to have a beer with, but......Well, we’d probably all agree that Cummings and Johnson are a pair of callous cunts
If he can steer the government through ditching the legacy of May/Robbins he gets my support on that - the callous fucker
Indeed - that was also a problem in 2016 when the views of those not worthy were countedThe only reason they put up with it in the first place was on the assumption this would happen. We were all warned last autumn that the Govt would abandon the political declaration and WA and risk a hard Brexit and did we listen? - Yes, and BJ was returned with a massive majority. It's this giving the public one vote each that messes things up!
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,723
Yes, I won't try and defend it from a moral ethical view, but that is not the same as a legal position. Like being engaged when you are still married, it's wrong/immoral but not illegal.
I’m assuming you’re following the House of Commons today but if not, they’ve just said they are breaking international law but in a “specific and limited way”.
So ill revise to say I’m certain it was for both legal and ethical reasons :)
No lawyer will go along with subverting the law or participating in breaking the law.
Same happened in 2003 when someone (I forget her name) resigned because she believed the Iraq war was ‘illegal’.
If you just want the Govt to appoint corrupt lawyers then just say so and we can celebrate the point where we free ourselves from the ‘rule of law’ and became a banana republic or a failed State.
Please keep up - as @Chris in London explained - the rumoured changes will not be illegal or breaking the law....
What was that you were saying about tears???
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
Yes but only with regards to matters that effect the UK where indeed it is sovereign, but it is not sovereign with respect to the other party in an international agreement so unilateral legislation has no standing unless the other party gives consent.
Now the UK can go rogue and specifically ignore this, indeed it can cut all relations with Europe or do what the hell it likes but that just ends in chaos and for what? So we can plough billions of State Aid into tech companies and make them world beaters? Anyone think the EU or even the US will be allowing these State funded companies to operate within their borders after we have tossed diplomatic relations with 28 countries into the crapper?
It is a policy of diminishing returns. The reason we are getting these increasingly desperate moves is that we are stuck in a mess of our own creation and every way out is politically unpalatable. I know the Brexit Brains Trust think threatening the WA is showing steely resolve because how else can you explain a deal that went from an ‘oven ready Brexit and a great deal’ to ‘we have to junk this terrible deal’ in nine months. The point of being partisan is that you have to swallow contradictory ideas without batting an eye.
I think the Govt is more incompetent than cunts. I mean, yes, they are cunts but incompetence is more the worry :)
Parliamentary sovereignty gives parliament the right to enact whatever law it chooses. There are no limits other than the ones it imposes on itself.
Beyond that, I’m not entering into a debate on the merits of what it should do. I only wanted to point out what it can do legally, to which the answer is ‘anything.’ And yes, that includes going rogue and ignoring international commitments. I’m a long way beyond wasting my time arguing with people who think it’s a good thing to be willing to walk away from international agreements. I’m simply pointing out that the provisions of the WA, despite what was said at the time, do not impose legal restraints on what Parliament now chooses to do.
On the last paragraph, Perhaps we can agree that they are a bunch of incompetent cunts?
Blue Hefner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 15,530
You're hitting new lows. No, it's not his job to help turn his country into a lawless pariah state.What a soft fucker he must be - was it not his job, which he will have been well paid to do, to provide support and advice to the government of the day on how to bring forward legislation to deliver policy?
Anyway - I see this only as a positive - it seems that the rumoured intention to reduce the impact of the WA has some truth behind it
Civil service code:
You must:
- provide information and advice, including advice to ministers, on the basis of the evidence, and accurately present the options and facts
- take decisions on the merits of the case
- take due account of expert and professional advice
You must not:
- ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions
If you feel you cannot carry out the instructions you have been given, you will have to resign from the Civil Service.
And is not the gist of what you are saying here exactly what Remainers on here were applauding as democracy in action in the days of Bercow, Grieve and Soubry?Most folk wont give a fuck.
We are at the end stage and business end of a negotiation and this government is doing what it was mandated to do and that is get the best deal if possible for the UK and will do what it needs to do that. If that means Parliament using its sovereignty and passing new law then so be it.
As ever, if the EU also wants to dig its heels in then that is also fine.
There will be no deal but i don't think that will happen. Both sides will sabre rattle and talk tough right up till midnight of the last night at which point ground will be given by both and a deal agreed.
There is nothing this government could do to satisfy you Bob, nothing. Even an announcement to remain this afternoon and call it all off would leave you grasping to find something to criticise it over so you constantly telling us the world is laughing or describing toddler tantrums is literally falling on deaf ears.
Well done the UK government i say. Do what is required i say. Don't give an inch until such a time its suits to do so and only if the other side is willing to budge say i.
No tears here. No crying. No hissy fit or tantrums.
Was all that exultation and gloating really less than a year ago???
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
And is not the gist of what you are saying here exactly what Remainers on here were applauding as democracy in action in the days of Bercow, Grieve and Soubry?
Was all that exultation and gloating really less than a year ago???
Its exactly the gist and roundly applauded and cheered at the time.
Now its a terrible thing to do.
Go figure?
Elections have consequences and all that ;)Its exactly the gist and roundly applauded and cheered at the time.
Now its a terrible thing to do.
Go figure?
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Elections have consequences and all that ;)
Its only right we ignore that result as well and lets just keep going until some get the result they want.
I don't see that as the point at allI think thats the point....they are chucking his, very expensive professional advice, out the window...
I see it that he is being a typical mardarse senior CS type that, because of his EU sycophancy, is refusing to undertake the job he has been well paid to do - to provide advice on how the achieve the implementation of a desired outcome of the PM
The more that do the same - the less there will be a need for Cummings to cull
- Status
- Not open for further replies.