Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltonblue said:
They have no authority to the courts. All they do is advise the government. I said where the EU would take it, we signed up to that too.

I’m not sure there’s much of an argument to be had here given they’ve already said they’re breaching the law in the House of Commons already. The idea there is no potential recompense for that outside of reputational damage is a false one though.
Click to expand...
We left the EU in Jan 20, so we are no longer subject to EU law or courts I suppose. I think the usual procedure if you wish to govern a state which is not subject to your rule is to invade / bomb it, but despite the enthusiasm for an EU army I'm doubtful that is on the cards. It's a bit like our ex-colonies. We can ask nicely if they still want to be subject to our Queen and to be members of the commonwealth, but if they tell us to fuck of, then off we must fuck unless we are going to send the Armed Forces in to subjugate them. If I were the SNP I would be most keen on this legislation.
 
BobKowalski said:
Barnier has spoken...all very calm and low key as you would expect. Well apart from the did about ‘mutual trust and confidence’ :)

‘For there to be any future relationship between the EU and the UK, there must be mutual trust and confidence between us - today and in the future.

My statement following this week’s negotiating round:’

europa.eu

Statement by Michel Barnier following Round 8 of negotiations for a new partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom

The eighth round of negotiations on the future EU-UK partnership took place in London this week.\nThe EU remains committed to an ambitious future partnership with the UK. This would clearly be to the b
europa.eu europa.eu
Click to expand...
EU shots across the bows - welcomed and applauded

UK doing similar - derided and a cause of indignation

Where do you live again?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
He's also a lawyer and probably realises the EU are pissing up a rope. Either that or it's a cunning double bluff to let the tories hang themselves.
Click to expand...

aren’t there two points

the first is they will argue the EU is in breach as it is not negotiating in good faith . (I don’t know whether they are or not)

second in the agreement it’s EXPRESSLY subject to parliamentary sovereignty which means the agreement is subject to this higher authority .

still you would be pissed off if you thought you had an agreement and now you don’t.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I am as long as the attorney general doesn't happen to be the highest legal authority in the land. I suppose the EU could take us to its own court, but of course we are no longer in the EU. They should probably just treat us like any other non EU state I suppose.
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder why the EU are so determined to establish the ECJ as the court of arbitration ;-)

And also makes you wonder why BM UK citizens support that - perhaps it is simply true that winning an argument on an internet forum is indeed more important than what is best for UK national interests?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
We left the EU in Jan 20, so we are no longer subject to EU law or courts I suppose. I think the usual procedure if you wish to govern a state which is not subject to your rule is to invade / bomb it, but despite the enthusiasm for an EU army I'm doubtful that is on the cards. It's a bit like our ex-colonies. We can ask nicely if they still want to be subject to our Queen and to be members of the commonwealth, but if they tell us to fuck of, then off we must fuck unless we are going to send the Armed Forces in to subjugate them. If I were the SNP I would be most keen on this legislation.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, let’s just leave it there :)
 
mcfc1632 said:
Makes you wonder why the EU are so determined to establish the ECJ as the court of arbitration ;-)

And also makes you wonder why BM UK citizens support that - perhaps it is simply true that winning an argument on an internet forum is indeed more important than what is best for UK national interests?
Click to expand...
I find Bob's emotional state quite a useful barometer on how things are going. He seemed ok last week....
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
well after the drama of today frosty has confirmed that trade talks will continue next week in Brussels .

hopefully knock heads together and start to get a deal which is good for the UK
Click to expand...
Yes, I think as was the case this time last year Barnier will be given some painting or gardening to do while the grown ups talk.
 
meltonblue said:
Well, quite!

If Braverman had any kind of integrity about her and was following the code of conduct she should be, it really should be a resigning matter. Instead, she’s chosen herself to put politics above the rule of law.

Anyone remotely supporting it can
never criticise Trump and Barr again, we’re just as bad.
Click to expand...
So you are indeed more qualified than the AG
 
mcfc1632 said:
Makes you wonder why the EU are so determined to establish the ECJ as the court of arbitration ;-)

And also makes you wonder why BM UK citizens support that - perhaps it is simply true that winning an argument on an internet forum is indeed more important than what is best for UK national interests?
Click to expand...

They aren’t and it’s irrelevant as it isn’t EU law that’s at issue here. The arbitration panel is completely separate to the ECJ, they are only involved if there is EU law in question and still report to the arbitration panel.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
well after the drama of today frosty has confirmed that trade talks will continue next week in Brussels .

hopefully knock heads together and start to get a deal which is good for the UK
Click to expand...
A real "stop with the melodrama and antics and start behaving like adults... both of you!" moment.
 
meltonblue said:
They aren’t and it’s irrelevant as it isn’t EU law that’s at issue here. The arbitration panel is completely separate to the ECJ, they are only involved if there is EU law in question and still report to the arbitration panel.
Click to expand...
You missed the future tense

I was talking about the desire of the EU to have the ECJ as the point of arbitration with regards the TA
 
mcfc1632 said:
Indeed - a valid concern

But surely you are not advocating that the strategic policies of the UK and its ability to act in the interests of its citizens should be determined by a need to appease potential terrorism?
Click to expand...
No.
But a lot of people vested a lot of time and energy in trying to create a future for a part of what the UK regard as their territory, their people.
Trusting the present government you have not to fuck it up on ever changing whims is not something that inspires confidence North or South of the border or internationally for that matter.

Northern Ireland is quite evidently not top of your present government’s agenda when it comes to Brexit.

Trusting them to make sound decisions about Northern Ireland is not something I would do.

If you want to go back centuries there is a track record of Tory decisions regarding Ireland that I would regard as big contributing factors as to how you got to the stage where paramilitaries came to prominence in the seventies.

The vast majority on this island chose to look forward to a different future, that I always assumed would take at least three generations to find it’s way.

I don’t think this government are thinking three generations down the road.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Than the AG?
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That’s the only interpretation that can be made from that statement, given it doesn’t give any legal advice on the area that is actually being breached. Given she is qualified, as you say, it’s clearly not a competence issue, so clearly it’s been deliberately written in that way.

We’ve had it before where AGs have pushed the boundaries. I can’t remember anyone ever before just ignoring them so brazenly though.

I mean, trying to write into domestic law something designed deliberately to breach international law really is a wow moment for anyone really interested in the subject. To then have legal advice publicised that doesn’t even address it is then even more wow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top