Another new Brexit thread

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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.

I suppose the argument lies in which takes precedence domdestically. Intl law or the domestic law. Previously the EU Court would presumably have been the higher power although I don't profess to really know how this all works. It's clearly wrong for a non EU member to be subject to EU law / court, but is there an international court of law that may find in the EU's favour and who's authority is above all? I suppose the EU could decide to impose sanctions on the UK, just as a state or group of states does. I'm assuming apartheid in SA was against international law, but we didn't have the power to actually make them stop it, we just used the pressure of sanctions and exclusion. That avenue would probably be open to the EU - declare us a rogue state or evil axis or something and impose a trade embargo.

 

[mcfc1632]

The EU seems to have been shocked that the UK has decided to stop laying down and taking orders

They must miss May/Robbins soooo much

MSN

 

[bluethrunthru]

sovereignty = the availability and price of banana's to go back to WW2 level - Project Fear just won't go away will it? Wonder why?

No-deal Brexit means food price rises, warns Morrisons

Storage issues could hit cost of fruit and veg as supermarket chain’s profits plunge

www.theguardian.com

 

[meltonblue]

I suppose the argument lies in which takes precedence domdestically. Intl law or the domestic law. Previously the EU Court would presumably have been the higher power although I don't profess to really know how this all works. It's clearly wrong for a non EU member to be subject to EU law / court, but is there an international court of law that may find in the EU's favour and who's authority is above all? I suppose the EU could decide to impose sanctions on the UK, just as a state or group of states does. I'm assuming apartheid in SA was against international law, but we didn't have the power to actually make them stop it, we just used the pressure of sanctions and exclusion. That avenue would probably be open to the EU - declare us a rogue state or evil axis or something and impose a trade embargo.

No, there is no argument. Trying to implement domestic law to circumvent international law is the breach of law in itself, that’s the point. We’ve said we are breaching it, we’re not even trying to argue it.

Its got nothing to do with EU law or the EU courts. If the EU want to progress it, it will go to the joint committee and then an arbitration panel which is set up jointly between ourselves and the EU.

 

[mat]

Is it just me, or is the Bill so complicated because it's trying to smuggle through something even nastier than breaking the law? I mean, wouldn't a one-clause bill do that? "Notwithstanding any other law, sovereignty means a minister of the crown (possibly one not elected) can make an Order with no parliamentary scrutiny to do whatever is necessary to make the UK look stupid"?

Of course it is.

This is the Tories were talking about. There will be something in that bill that will bulldoze our rights and everyone is looking at the dead cat bit.

 

[BobKowalski]

The view from down under. Think the headline says it all really...

‘Global Insight: Can NZ trust Brexiteer Boris?’

The willingness of Boris Johnson's govt to break parts of the EU Withdrawal Agreement has troubling implications for negotiating an FTA between NZ and the UK. Interview, Bruce Munro, Global Insight, ODT, 10 Sept 2020:

Global Insight: Can NZ trust Brexiteer Boris?

New Zealand politicians need to say whether they would hold the United Kingdom to account if elected, Professor Robert Patman says.

www.odt.co.nz

 

[BobKowalski]

Probably already been posted but the Govt lawyer who has resigned over this is still at his desk serving his three month notice and issuing statements. Under the Ministerial and Civil Service Code, Ministers and Civil Servants are I believe obligated to follow the law.

 

[meltonblue]

Probably already been posted but the Govt lawyer who has resigned over this is still at his desk serving his three month notice and issuing statements. Under the Ministerial and Civil Service Code, Ministers and Civil Servants are I believe obligated to follow the law.

Ouch!

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Probably already been posted but the Govt lawyer who has resigned over this is still at his desk serving his three month notice and issuing statements. Under the Ministerial and Civil Service Code, Ministers and Civil Servants are I believe obligated to follow the law.

Even if the law gets changed?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Probably already been posted but the Govt lawyer who has resigned over this is still at his desk serving his three month notice and issuing statements. Under the Ministerial and Civil Service Code, Ministers and Civil Servants are I believe obligated to follow the law.

If he is on notice and not gardening leave he will be working as usual. This looks like a memo to all his staff telling them where they need to direct any questions they have regarding the Govt action.

 

[meltonblue]

If he is on notice and not gardening leave he will be working as usual. This looks like a memo to all his staff telling them where they need to direct any questions they have regarding the Govt action.

It’s him telling all of them they are breaching the ministerial code and getting a dig in at the same time.

 

[mat]

Peston isn't a journalist anymore.

He's a paid up Cummings shit stirrer.

Back on topic.

As well as fucking Brexit our government are going to fuck up CANZAK as well.

Looks like they want a full isolated country so they return to their glory days of serfdom.

 

[BobKowalski]

Even if the law gets changed?

We are breaking the law by breaching our legal obligations under the WA. Changing domestic law does not invalidate the legal position under International law. The code extends to International Law. Changing domestic law cannot change the WA, it can only change the domestic law giving it effect. The WA can only be changed with the agreement of all signatories.

If I recall correctly, the AG’s statement fixed solely on domestic law because she couldn’t say anything on International Law other than we are breaking it, equally she couldn’t say we weren’t so she said nothing (I may be wrong on this).

Also note that the Jones statement refers to the Cabinet Secretary saying it was okay, not the AG or any legal dept.

Finally we have admitted we are breaking International Law. After that it’s all pretty much moot.

 

[mcfc1632]

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.

I cannot disagree with any of that and respect it all

But.......

We have all been badly let down by the poor leadership on Brexit of May/Robbins

The outcome is the UK is in a situation that is intolerable going forward

I can well understand that Ireland will not be happy - and N.I. - Scotland (in the SNP) will seek to make political capital - but England and Wales should not have to swallow

There should have been better negotiations previously - the fault of many parties but especially the UK (May) and the EU

From a UK POV this travesty of a WA and PD must be stopped - I regret the impact on other parties - but the EU should not have taken the piss in negotiations (TBF - I would have done the same in their position and facing off against the muppets May/Robbins)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Peston isn't a journalist anymore.

He's a paid up Cummings shit stirrer.

Back on topic.

As well as fucking Brexit our government are going to fuck up CANZAK as well.

Looks like they want a full isolated country so they return to their glory days of serfdom.

I'm surprised no one seems to be mentioning the licence to deregulate the financial sector implicit within the proposed legislation. I think this has been the main aim of the ERG / BJ all along. Combined with a reduction in rights and probably pay for workers it will probably usher in an economic boom in the UK greater than any before, but at a terrible social cost.

 

[Saddleworth2]

An element yes - control by one party - no

It was never controlled by one party. Each had something to give. That’s called negotiation. This debacle has not been an adult negotiation so far.

 

[mat]

I'm surprised no one seems to be mentioning the licence to deregulate the financial sector implicit within the proposed legislation. I think this has been the main aim of the ERG / BJ all along. Combined with a reduction in rights and probably pay for workers it will probably usher in an economic boom in the UK greater than any before, but at a terrible social cost.

It's the hidden detail which is the real purpose of that bill. Everyone concentrates on the breaking international law paragraph instead.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It's the hidden detail which is the real purpose of that bill. Everyone concentrates on the breaking international law paragraph instead.

Blame the EU for that. They are perhaps naturally concentrated on what it means for them, but I'm not convinced the Govt actually care about getting one over the EU tbh so long as they can turn canary wharf into an anything goes casino and the rest of us are trapped in the 'gig' economy on 'competitive' wages.

 

[meltonblue]

It's the hidden detail which is the real purpose of that bill. Everyone concentrates on the breaking international law paragraph instead.

Thats down to a couple of things. One is it’s one of those rare situations where the means are so clearly wrong, it doesn’t even need considering what the ends are.

The other is the ends are pretty complex too. One big element of it is state aid. The daft thing with that though is there’s not much point subsidising companies in the short term if they haven’t got anyone to sell the goods or services to longer term.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Thats down to a couple of things. One is it’s one of those rare situations where the means are so clearly wrong, it doesn’t even need considering what the ends are.

The other is the ends are pretty complex too. One big element of it is state aid. The daft thing with that though is there’s not much point subsidising companies in the short term if they haven’t got anyone to sell the goods or services to longer term.

Does anyone honestly think the 'state aid' will be a Jeremy Corbyn style propping up / nationalisation of industry?