Another new Brexit thread

[bluejon]

Not sure the ERG lot will see it that way if we do any kind of deal. The reality is that a soft brexit is one we could all live with but a hard brexit is the minimum that tory arseholes will accept and there is little difference between a hard brexit and no deal. Both will be a disaster - but that is what we will get.

Soft brexit could have worked but the ERG knobs were never going to let that happen.

Just watching andrea leadsom on the news now talking about the WA. It's pathetic.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The ERG are saying the WA needs ripping up now...........

The 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!

 

[BobKowalski]

well if he is unhappy about what the PM is doing he should stand for election to become the Prime Minister then he can decide what to do And implement it .

until then he should shut his trap and do what he is supposed to do as a civil servant.

impartial and independent civil service, my arse

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.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

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.

don’t worry you remainers you should be celebrating this .

apparently boris is going to rip up an international treaty and break the WA and the GFA basically on a whim .

thIs your moment - STOP BREXIT !!!!

 

[meltonblue]

have you got the changes, I haven’t seen them?

No, I’ve got precedence. If you haven’t seen them, then how did you come to your assumption? You really think after being in position for over six years and what he’s looked over on that time, this time it’s due to political opinion...? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[BobKowalski]

@BobKowalski who is crying here?

We are. Unless you think signing an International Treaty, enthusing about how good it is, urging people to vote for you on the back of it and then crying about it nine months later is the hallmark of sensible, adult behaviour.

If your idea of Govt is toddler tantrums because the world declines to fit the fantasy narrative you have created then you are in luck because that is exactly what you are getting and will continue to get.

 

[BobKowalski]

don’t worry you remainers you should be celebrating this .

apparently boris is going to rip up an international treaty and break the WA and the GFA basically on a whim .

thIs your moment - STOP BREXIT !!!!

Brexit has already happened. You cannot stop something that has already occurred.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Brexit has already happened. You cannot stop something that has already occurred.

you under estimate the powers of Gina and Lord Pannick

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

No, I’ve got precedence. If you haven’t seen them, then how did you come to your assumption? You really think after being in position for over six years and what he’s looked over on that time, this time it’s due to political opinion...? That makes absolutely no sense.

because that’s why he is saying he is resigning. That’s why we are talking about this . Bob posted it , it’s all over the news .

 

[BobKowalski]

you under estimate the powers of Gina and Lord Pannick

No, I just don‘t live in a fantasy world where I allow partisanship to bend my perception of reality.

 

[meltonblue]

because that’s why he is saying he is resigning. That’s why we are talking about this . Bob posted it , it’s all over the news .

He hasn’t said why he is resigning at all. Precedence has been that the only times a treasury lawyer has done that is because they won’t knowingly implement anything they know to be unlawful. Where have you got the assumption that it’s political from, bearing in mind he’s been in position for six years (a position that has always been independent and impartial)?

 

[blueinsa]

We are. Unless you think signing an International Treaty, enthusing about how good it is, urging people to vote for you on the back of it and then crying about it nine months later is the hallmark of sensible, adult behaviour.

If your idea of Govt is toddler tantrums because the world declines to fit the fantasy narrative you have created then you are in luck because that is exactly what you are getting and will continue to get.

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.

 

[Chris in London]

Well, he does disagree a little bit :)

The language of the WA and the legislation that gives it effect does state that future legislation will be subject to the provisions of the WA and be interpreted in accordance with the WA. The WA legislation is the product of a treaty between two parties so the principle of not allowing unilateral legislation to override it is sound.

In practice a Govt could take the political decision to ignore this and specifically instruct the courts to set aside all aspects of an international agreement if this was challenged, but then once you do that, it allows other countries to do the same with respect to international agreements they sign with us. Spain with Gibraltar for example.

Personally I don‘t see the Govt doing this, make a lot of noise, get as much wriggle room as possible under the protocols, yeah but disavow entirely? No. On the other hand the damage has been done. German news reports are all about how ‘unreliable‘ the UK Govt is, how ‘untrustworthy’ we are. That perception will be difficult to shake off.

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.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

He hasn’t said why he is resigning at all. Precedence has been that the only times a treasury lawyer has done that is because they won’t knowingly implement anything they know to be unlawful. Where have you got the assumption that it’s political from, bearing in mind he’s been in position for six years (a position that has always been independent and impartial)?

Genuinely confused as to what is unlawful and to what legislative body said law belongs - please explain.

 

[meltonblue]

Genuinely confused as to what is unlawful and to what legislative body said law belongs - please explain.

We don’t know yet, that’s part of the point. I’m just talking about the precedence.

 

[blueinsa]

Oh 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.

The heady days of being told parliament was sovereign and could do whatever it liked. If it wanted to change the law to remain then so be it.....

Sovereignty is a bit of an issue again this week I see ;-)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

We don’t know yet, that’s part of the point. I’m just talking about the precedence.

I think the moral argument is getting confused with the legal one. I understand that we would be going back on our word, but from a legal perspective it would seem as per what @Chris in London said above a simple parliamentary majority could make the necessary ammendments to ensure no laws are broken. For this reason I think the resignation thus morning is a political gesture by a supposedly neutral civil servant (again). Still, everyone should have the right to withdraw their labour I suppose.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

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.

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).

 

[blueinsa]

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).

Sovereign parliament was being cheered on last year when it did what it wanted for a few months and looked likely to scupper brexit.

I saw no references to North Korea then?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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).

Tbh honest I don't think this will matter in the slightest. It is nice to see such patriotism espoused though.