Yes, that's about the strength of it, but I wonder if we countered with,Let’s get to the end game it’s all huff and puff at the moment
EU
give us your fish
obey our laws
Then we will talk
UK
No.
'Quite literally crying with laughter at the UK.' Look, I'm not bothered what they do, but it appears any quips directed back are beyond the pale.well if they were laughing at the execution of Brexit who else would they be laughing at? Henry Kissinger?
that is quite funny.you wouldn’t want it mate, it’s stickier than an 80s edition of Razzle.
If primary legislation is passed that is strictly inconsistent with the WA, that will take precedence as a matter of UK Law no matter what the WA says. That’s what parliamentary sovereignty means. It always did mean that, as the Supreme Court discussed in Gina Miller’s case. The courts will strive to construe legislation in a way that is compatible with the WA, because the presumption would be that a Parliament did not intend to act in a way that was incompatible with its international treaty obligations unless it uses clear language to that effect. But if it does, and the legislation says ‘Tis’ where the WA says ‘tisnt’, there is no prospect of any primary legislation being struck down by the courts.
This is not to say this wouldn’t have consequences. If we simultaneously and unilaterally depart from two internationally registered and ratified agreements- the WA and the GFA - many other countries might understandably become far more reluctant to enter into future agreements (like trade deals), but that’s what happens when you put a bunch of liars and chancers in charge of the government.
Then attack them rather than the entire French nation.'Quite literally crying with laughter at the UK.' Look, I'm not bothered what they do, but it appears any quips directed back are beyond the pale.
Nah, fuck dat.
As far as breaking manifesto promises goes I refer you to every previous govt everywhere, ever. Although it may seem undemocratic to table new statutes / legislation to overide the WA, it's not as undemocratic as allowing the EU to have a say in the running of the UK after we have left. They (and in some respects we) need to realise they have 20-odd other countries they can dictate to now we are one of the 170-something countries in the world that are not EU members.I disagree, the WA is underpinned by the EU withdrawal act which says that the WA takes precedence over UK law. Parliament does have the ability to write new statutes that specifically override it. This would be highly undemocratic as it would require us to effectively tear up the WA given enacting the agreement was policy #1 in the manifesto of this government.
"The bill provides that the Withdrawal Agreement itself will be enforceable by the UK courts, including after the end of the transition period. This means that the courts will also enforce any rules of EU law incorporated into the Withdrawal Agreement.
In addition, the bill attempts to give the Withdrawal Agreement “supremacy” over UK law, by saying that all domestic enactments have effect “subject to” the provisions which give effect to the agreement. The bill uses exactly the same language to give effect to the Withdrawal Agreement that the European Communities Act 1972 used to give effect to EU law. The most likely outcome of this is that if, in future, Parliament passed a statute inconsistent with the agreement, the courts would disapply the statute in favour of the agreement – unless Parliament explicitly told them to do the reverse.
The bill also “recognises” that Parliament is sovereign, even though some EU law and the agreement itself will have supremacy over statutes passed by Parliament. However, this “parliamentary sovereignty” clause is unlikely to have any legal effect.
The protocol on Northern Ireland, which replaced the “backstop” in the previous Withdrawal Agreement, provides that Northern Ireland will continue to align with some EU rules, in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The bill gives ministers wide powers to implement the protocol by secondary legislation.
Other than that, the bill says very little about how the protocol arrangements will be implemented.
The bill also forbids the government from agreeing anything in the EU in the future that would alter the arrangements for North–South co-operation under the Good Friday Agreement.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/withdrawal-agreement-act
Absolutely fine if we don't want an agreement to cover our post Brexit trading arrangement and if we're all happy with either a hard border being re-introduced in Ireland or EU customs agents monitoring GB/NI trade.As far as breaking manifesto promises goes I refer you to every previous govt everywhere, ever. Although it may seem undemocratic to table new statutes / legislation to overide the WA, it's not as undemocratic as allowing the EU to have a say in the running of the UK after we have left. They (and in some respects we) need to realise they have 20-odd other countries they can dictate to now we are one of the 170-something countries in the world that are not EU members.
Sigh, no.Then attack them rather than the entire French nation.
Exactly this. Giving away territory and accepting foreign laws just to buy and sell stuff is now not on the table, it's utterly ludicrous to expect it to be.As far as breaking manifesto promises goes I refer you to every previous govt everywhere, ever. Although it may seem undemocratic to table new statutes / legislation to overide the WA, it's not as undemocratic as allowing the EU to have a say in the running of the UK after we have left. They (and in some respects we) need to realise they have 20-odd other countries they can dictate to now we are one of the 170-something countries in the world that are not EU members.
So - todays ploy - "threaten them with the collapse of the GFA " is dead in the water already ( no pun intended ) ?
A few of these ferries and goods to the continent from Eire and back can go direct - robbing UK ports of massive volumes of lorries. The only trucks that come here are the ones to deliver here - cue huge half empty lorry parks. Meantime anything trying to get into Eire from Ulster is subject to checks at the border which aren't there now and were promised never to be needed? The GFA hits the rocks and calls for a united Ireland intensify - possibly reviving the troubles. Anything we want to send into the EU is subject to border checks too.
If Biden wins then he and Pelosi are on record as saying if the GFA is threatened they won't be doing a trade deal with the UK Govt responsible for it.
Conclusion. When you think you own a border and can't get the concept somebody owns the other side and is not obliged to do what you want them to do at that border just because you tell them to then you end up announcing meaningless nonsense.
Setting aside the partisan nature of this topic - thank you for being go clear on this matterIf primary legislation is passed that is strictly inconsistent with the WA, that will take precedence as a matter of UK Law no matter what the WA says. That’s what parliamentary sovereignty means. It always did mean that, as the Supreme Court discussed in Gina Miller’s case. The courts will strive to construe legislation in a way that is compatible with the WA, because the presumption would be that a Parliament did not intend to act in a way that was incompatible with its international treaty obligations unless it uses clear language to that effect. But if it does, and the legislation says ‘Tis’ where the WA says ‘tisnt’, there is no prospect of any primary legislation being struck down by the courts.
This is not to say this wouldn’t have consequences. If we simultaneously and unilaterally depart from two internationally registered and ratified agreements- the WA and the GFA - many other countries might understandably become far more reluctant to enter into future agreements (like trade deals), but that’s what happens when you put a bunch of liars and chancers in charge of the government.
Thankfully the powers that be, and most of the citizens, don't believe the self loathing leftists who come out with this nonsense.
That will make the populace start to revise their opinions will it?
A bunch of surrender monkey hacks from a country twatted by Britain time and again, certainly makes us laugh.
Who told you that, Owen Jones?
I disagree, the WA is underpinned by the EU withdrawal act which says that the WA takes precedence over UK law. Parliament does have the ability to write new statutes that specifically override it. This would be highly undemocratic as it would require us to effectively tear up the WA given enacting the agreement was policy #1 in the manifesto of this government.
"The bill provides that the Withdrawal Agreement itself will be enforceable by the UK courts, including after the end of the transition period. This means that the courts will also enforce any rules of EU law incorporated into the Withdrawal Agreement.
In addition, the bill attempts to give the Withdrawal Agreement “supremacy” over UK law, by saying that all domestic enactments have effect “subject to” the provisions which give effect to the agreement. The bill uses exactly the same language to give effect to the Withdrawal Agreement that the European Communities Act 1972 used to give effect to EU law. The most likely outcome of this is that if, in future, Parliament passed a statute inconsistent with the agreement, the courts would disapply the statute in favour of the agreement – unless Parliament explicitly told them to do the reverse.
The bill also “recognises” that Parliament is sovereign, even though some EU law and the agreement itself will have supremacy over statutes passed by Parliament. However, this “parliamentary sovereignty” clause is unlikely to have any legal effect.
The protocol on Northern Ireland, which replaced the “backstop” in the previous Withdrawal Agreement, provides that Northern Ireland will continue to align with some EU rules, in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
The bill gives ministers wide powers to implement the protocol by secondary legislation.
Other than that, the bill says very little about how the protocol arrangements will be implemented.
The bill also forbids the government from agreeing anything in the EU in the future that would alter the arrangements for North–South co-operation under the Good Friday Agreement.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/withdrawal-agreement-act
Those epithets haven't been applied to the English in general, just the subset of which you are a member.Sigh, no.
We have been called Gammons,and Little Englanders, by people on here, OK, nobody's crying, although if I were to call the French smelly breath, horse munching, perpetual strikers the fits of vapour would be seen for miles.
The French have pejoratives for us, so this is looking like fervent europhiles upset at the name calling of their adored institution, to me.
And it was the Simpsons who first used the one I did, why not get them banned or something if it bothers so much?
As far as breaking manifesto promises goes I refer you to every previous govt everywhere, ever. Although it may seem undemocratic to table new statutes / legislation to overide the WA, it's not as undemocratic as allowing the EU to have a say in the running of the UK after we have left. They (and in some respects we) need to realise they have 20-odd other countries they can dictate to now we are one of the 170-something countries in the world that are not EU members.
This is why I have been commenting that there is a need for a 'steely/callous' approach if the damage inflicted by 3 years of May/Robbins is to be unpickedAs far as breaking manifesto promises goes I refer you to every previous govt everywhere, ever. Although it may seem undemocratic to table new statutes / legislation to overide the WA, it's not as undemocratic as allowing the EU to have a say in the running of the UK after we have left. They (and in some respects we) need to realise they have 20-odd other countries they can dictate to now we are one of the 170-something countries in the world that are not EU members.
We are now a sovereign independent nation again, thanks to Brexit, and we will decide the state aid rules and who gets to fish in our waters.Exactly this. Giving away territory and accepting foreign laws just to buy and sell stuff is now not on the table, it's utterly ludicrous to expect it to be.
Although you start your post with the words ‘ I disagree’ it does not seem to me that you’re actually disagreeing with me. You accept that an earlier parliament has no power to bind a later Parliament. If the current Parliament decides, notwithstanding anything that is in the WA or the EU withdrawal act, to do something that is contrary to the Act or the WA, that takes precedence over anything that passed before.
Legally, parliament can do what it wants. That’s nothing to do with the merits of the issue or the wider issues surrounding Brexit, it’s just how our constitution works.
Whether it should act in that way is another question entirely.