I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
You keep coming out with this dross.
This democratically elected government was elected to sign this particular piece of international law! It was literally their flagship policy.
If they want to back out of it (😂) then it should be done properly, by mutual consent. Anything else just makes us look like a tinpot little untrustworthy country.
I suspect - like this whole process - this is bedevilled by crap and emotive reporting by the media who are willing to take the EU’s position as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
As I understand the government’s position, there are certain provisions in the Protocol that were to be agreed by a mutual Committee.
This law is in respect of what happens if the Committee does not agree. The EU is saying the status quo ante should apply. The U.K. is saying Ministers have the right to decide unilaterally.
Without having read the specific clauses (so I am assuming that it isn’t spelt out in black and white) that is not an unreasonable dispute. Both sides are marking out an extreme position which gives them an advantage.
Everything else is bullshit (especially the governments media handling which passes all understanding on how inept it is).
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
Fine. The odds are the USA was never going to give us a trade deal in the short term anyway and some things are more important.
"Some things are more important": The EU trade deal the UK won't get, the Japan Trade deal the UK won't get, any of the other 268 trade deals the UK now doesn't have and won't get because Johnson thinks laws are for things for other countries and other people.
I suppose the "more important" things are the culture wars in the UK: should generate plenty of jobs that...
Democracy and the right to set our own laws is more important than ALL of that, yes.
Why would anyone sign an agreement with this government? Not worth the paper it’s written on. The government is going to have to offer trade partners the moon on a stick to take the risk of dealing with us.
It doesn't appear that Philip is actually interested in signing any trade agreements anyway. Why would he, since he expects both us and our counterparties to not abide by any bits they don't like?
The legislation will not become law until 2022 at the earliest as the Lords will inevitably reject it. So what happens in the meantime?
Presumably the Lords cannot be overruled by the Parliament Act as they would be upholding the Governments manifesto. What a topsy turvey world.
No that's not correct. The Lords can always be overruled by the Parliament Act. The point is that that takes a year. The convention (not statute) is that the Lords should not give cause/requirement for the Parliament Act to be triggered (ie. by not backing down and repeatedly opposing the will of the Commons) if the issue relates to a manifesto commitment.
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
Nothing really matters right now apart from putting an end to this lockdown misery. However much some obsess here about brexit and the withdrawal agreement.
And there’s a gaping political hole for someone to fill, if they stand up and start making the grown up case for the Swedish approach, rather than doubling down on the fear and hysteria.
Quite clear that Starmer isn’t going to fill it. And the Lib Dems are led by the same empty suit who’s been invisible since December.
I would suggest that should anyone step into this political void, the government’s polling support would collapse.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
It's not just a question of international law it's a question of international diplomacy. Foreign relations are largely about intangibles like trust and reputation. If a treaty was signed by a highly partisan government and there was a radical change in public opinion after an election then it might be possible to justify an amendment to a treaty.
But that hasn't happened. This is a treaty this present government signed knowing full well that there was a risk of a break down in negotiations. You simply can't ask other governments to trust you when it's you yourself that are changing your minds..
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
Fine. The odds are the USA was never going to give us a trade deal in the short term anyway and some things are more important.
"Some things are more important": The EU trade deal the UK won't get, the Japan Trade deal the UK won't get, any of the other 268 trade deals the UK now doesn't have and won't get because Johnson thinks laws are for things for other countries and other people.
I suppose the "more important" things are the culture wars in the UK: should generate plenty of jobs that...
Democracy and the right to set our own laws is more important than ALL of that, yes.
I look forward to the day you're unemployed but fed on a surfeit of pseudo-sovereignty.
You don't speak for many others though and you certainly don't get to project your mania on to them.
I suspect - like this whole process - this is bedevilled by crap and emotive reporting by the media who are willing to take the EU’s position as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Sorry, you obviously missed the Government Minister standing at the despatch box saying they will break the law on Live TV
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
Fine. The odds are the USA was never going to give us a trade deal in the short term anyway and some things are more important.
"Some things are more important": The EU trade deal the UK won't get, the Japan Trade deal the UK won't get, any of the other 268 trade deals the UK now doesn't have and won't get because Johnson thinks laws are for things for other countries and other people.
I suppose the "more important" things are the culture wars in the UK: should generate plenty of jobs that...
Democracy and the right to set our own laws is more important than ALL of that, yes.
I look forward to the day you're unemployed but fed on a surfeit of pseudo-sovereignty.
You don't speak for many others though and you certainly don't get to project your mania on to them.
I speak for myself. Never pretended to do otherwise.
I am an absolutist on democracy viewing it to trump everything else, including yes international law. This isn't a new development it is entirely consistent with everything I have ever written.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
If only Jezza Hunt had been opposed to Fox hunting...
Why would anyone sign an agreement with this government? Not worth the paper it’s written on. The government is going to have to offer trade partners the moon on a stick to take the risk of dealing with us.
That's the most immediate effect of this.
We'll get far shitter trade deals, with far tighter enforcement mechanisms, if we get any at all.
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
Our insurance business does better in the States than in the EU. Who have we have we have free trade in services for 34 years?
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
Hopefully this is a one off, and turns out not to be a major issue, but there is a plausuible biological link to the vaccine.
Yes, it is concerning - and it’s also impossible to ascribe any particular odds to it at the moment (and is it not still possible that it was in one of the placebo subjects ?). Until the trial is complete, it’s not really possible to say anything concrete about the risks; at the moment it’s just guesswork, surely ?
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
Sigh. You can't "tweak" international treaties unilaterally. You can repudiate them in full or you can tweak them by mutual consent. Those are the two options.
Beyond that, whatever you put in domestic law is irrelevant when judging whether the treaty is being adhered to. And if there are any enforcement mechanisms written into that treaty then they will continue to apply. So in this case the UK will still be subject to the rulings of the ECJ, regardless of what changes have been made domestically.
*If* the Sun article is correct (and I would be astounded if it was Barnier but could well imagine it was played more subtly than that), do you think the U.K. should accept that?
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
It's not just a question of international law it's a question of international diplomacy. Foreign relations are largely about intangibles like trust and reputation. If a treaty was signed by a highly partisan government and there was a radical change in public opinion after an election then it might be possible to justify an amendment to a treaty.
But that hasn't happened. This is a treaty this present government signed knowing full well that there was a risk of a break down in negotiations. You simply can't ask other governments to trust you when it's you yourself that are changing your minds..
How do you think the international community would react to the U.K. not being allowed to send food to NI?
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
Spot on and well said
And I did not vote for him as leader in the ballot
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
To be fair BigG has a bit of a history of moving towards the light and then realising he's forgotten his coat.
No your argument is demented "A government can be elected do one thing until it decides to tear up that thing and do something different because it believes it has a mandate to do anything it likes", its such a thorough perversion of consent that it is difficult to believe a sane person would try to make it.
At least the nuclear argument is just a function of stupidity.
*If* the Sun article is correct (and I would be astounded if it was Barnier but could well imagine it was played more subtly than that), do you think the U.K. should accept that?
*If* the Sun article is correct, we already did.
It's the deal BoZo signed, that you lot were cheering to the rafters.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
The truth sometimes hurts. I am glad that you are beginning to realise what a disaster you have helped bring on the country. I hope there are better options for you to vote for next time.
Looking through why the Govt is doing this according to the Sun on twitter Well looks like with No Deal the only way out is a unified Ireland. Its expensive to run anyway. With Scotland leaving too, back to the Kingdom of England which did well enough for 780 years till 1707
The DUP should have taken May's Deal, although admittedly she should have had the sense to bring them inside the tent and talk to them about her plans rather than springing it on them at the end.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
The only thing surprising about all this is that anyone is surprised. This sort of thing has been Boris’ MO since day one. Whether it was getting sacked for lying, voting against Brexit to bring down May, shutting down Parliament illegally or this.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
I expect in the same vane there will be no criticism on this site of Labour supporters who stuck with the party under Corbyn.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
We left 8 months ago...
And what will our status be on the 1st January 2021 in regard to trade with the EU
Hopefully this is a one off, and turns out not to be a major issue, but there is a plausuible biological link to the vaccine.
Yes, it is concerning - and it’s also impossible to ascribe any particular odds to it at the moment (and is it not still possible that it was in one of the placebo subjects ?). Until the trial is complete, it’s not really possible to say anything concrete about the risks; at the moment it’s just guesswork, surely ?
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
AIUI what is proposed is that Ministers will have the power to regulate trade from and to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. That power gives them the right to override the agreement with the EU if they choose to do so.
The context of this is that the EU gave NI a special status with additional rights of access to the Single Market through Eire. The price of exercising this power would be that the EU may choose to withdraw those privileges. How significant that is for NI will very much depend upon what deal the UK has with the EU. In the event of a no deal it might be very significant and unwind some of the Irish peace accords which are built around the whole of Ireland being a single economy.
What I am finding strange about this is not that the UK government insists upon the right to regulate intra UK trade but that they think it is necessary to give these powers to Ministers now. The UK Parliament could of course grant Ministers such powers at any point so why do it now when the WA contained an undertaking that we would not do such a thing?
I think it is reasonable to infer that this is a shot across the EU's bows, that they cannot rely upon us complying with the WA indefinitely if there is no deal. This is presumably why such attention has been drawn to it. It is not a breach of an international agreement (let alone law) at all at the moment, it is the power to breach it if Ministers are so minded. This is a power we always have. Lewis could have said this power will only be used in consultation with the EU and with their agreement. He chose not to.
I am not comfortable with this tactic but both the header and many of the comments strike me as a little bit hysterical.
No your argument is demented "A government can be elected do one thing until it decides to tear up that thing and do something different because it believes it has a mandate to do anything it likes", its such a thorough perversion of consent that it is difficult to believe a sane person would try to make it.
At least the nuclear argument is just a function of stupidity.
So long as it can get it's bills through Parliament absolutely.
If you don't like what the Government does then vote for a new Government to change the law at the next election.
And that includes overriding any treaties this Government agrees if you feel it is necessary to do so.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
The truth sometimes hurts. I am glad that you are beginning to realise what a disaster you have helped bring on the country. I hope there are better options for you to vote for next time.
We have 4 more years of this to put up with.
Why is it an objective of yours to "hurt" with the truth? What possible good can come from it other than to make yourself feel better (in the short term since you'll regret this later)?
If you want Johnson gone quickly then act constructively. If you want him to stick around for 4 more years (and maybe you do so you can be even "righter") then please continue to act like an insidious Lefty twat.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
We left in January. What we are arguing about now is the post Brexit relationship, and whether we are going to abide by international treaties.
Ok. I thought the para might be in the WA but obviously its a nonsense in international terms if it is in our Acts. Still if the Govt does press forward with it it'll be legal domestically which means the Supreme Court can't overrule it I think...
If the government attempts to tweak the treaty in this manner while claiming its other provisions remain intact, it could well end up before the Supreme Court.
*If* the Sun article is correct (and I would be astounded if it was Barnier but could well imagine it was played more subtly than that), do you think the U.K. should accept that?
If the UK believes that such threats represented a breach of the Withdrawal Agreement then they should take that up under the enforcement mechanisms of the treaty, as and when it happened. Given that changing domestic law has no bearing on the legality of actions taken under the agreement the current proposals are pointless.
If they believed that they are not in breach of the Withdrawal agreement then perhaps they shouldn't have signed it in the first place.
Regardless, the obvious thing to do would have been to take a step back and ask the question whether there is a realistic prospect of the EU attempting to prevent exports of food from GB to Northern Ireland. And bearing in mind that this would have prevented exports to Eire, and likely retaliatory action with all that involves.
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
It's not just a question of international law it's a question of international diplomacy. Foreign relations are largely about intangibles like trust and reputation. If a treaty was signed by a highly partisan government and there was a radical change in public opinion after an election then it might be possible to justify an amendment to a treaty.
But that hasn't happened. This is a treaty this present government signed knowing full well that there was a risk of a break down in negotiations. You simply can't ask other governments to trust you when it's you yourself that are changing your minds..
How do you think the international community would react to the U.K. not being allowed to send food to NI?
They might wonder why we signed an agreement with such a possibility.
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
Sigh. You can't "tweak" international treaties unilaterally. You can repudiate them in full or you can tweak them by mutual consent. Those are the two options.
Beyond that, whatever you put in domestic law is irrelevant when judging whether the treaty is being adhered to. And if there are any enforcement mechanisms written into that treaty then they will continue to apply. So in this case the UK will still be subject to the rulings of the ECJ, regardless of what changes have been made domestically.
Just accept that on this issue, Philip is a scofflaw. Arguing with him on this is as futile as arguing with Trump.
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
Most days I wake up and assume Corbyn did win the election. Ballooning deficit plugged by printed money, nationalisation of rail, instructions telling private firms how to run their own affairs, an obsession with state aid at the expense of free trade, media leaks of impending wealth taxes... And of course, the insidious fear mongering and micromanagement of our daily lives out of all proportion to the risk.
Apart from the stamp duty holiday, it’s hard to think of much at all this government has done that a Corbyn government would not have.
How disappointing.
Corbyn wouldn't in fact have broken the law (in his way he's a stickler for procedure). And if he had, I doubt that Conservatives would have been as insouciant about it as some are today.
Thinking through the politics a bit more - a no deal and its consequences which are directly linked to a government decision to renege on a deal it commended to the electorate is quite a sell. Some, maybe most, 2019 Tories will blame the EU. But Johnson/Cummings need them all to.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
The truth sometimes hurts. I am glad that you are beginning to realise what a disaster you have helped bring on the country. I hope there are better options for you to vote for next time.
We have 4 more years of this to put up with.
Why is it an objective of yours to "hurt" with the truth? What possible good can come from it other than to make yourself feel better (in the short term since you'll regret this later)?
If you want Johnson gone quickly then act constructively. If you want him to stick around for 4 more years (and maybe you do so you can be even "righter") then please continue to act like an insidious Lefty twat.
The left do not seem to understand that their breathtaking arrogance was a key in brexit and their righteous indignation just strengthens the resolve of conservatives to support their party and in my case to support the election asap of a new leader
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
I suspect - like this whole process - this is bedevilled by crap and emotive reporting by the media who are willing to take the EU’s position as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Sorry, you obviously missed the Government Minister standing at the despatch box saying they will break the law on Live TV
No crap or emotive reporting
No taking the EU position
Your tireless spin is tragic
Charles’ brand of sophistry on this is at least more sophisticated than Philip’s.
"“Covid has gone from our wards, has been for weeks” reports the head nurse at one of the UK’s largest hospitals, “I can’t understand what the Government are going on about.”
Could Boris be our Richard Nixon? I'm trying to see something positive in all this. Tricky Dicky became a symbol of corruption and degradation of the office of President. Maybe Boris could be the same for us.
I fear for the next generation of Etonian politicians if he does.
AIUI what is proposed is that Ministers will have the power to regulate trade from and to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. That power gives them the right to override the agreement with the EU if they choose to do so.
The context of this is that the EU gave NI a special status with additional rights of access to the Single Market through Eire. The price of exercising this power would be that the EU may choose to withdraw those privileges. How significant that is for NI will very much depend upon what deal the UK has with the EU. In the event of a no deal it might be very significant and unwind some of the Irish peace accords which are built around the whole of Ireland being a single economy.
What I am finding strange about this is not that the UK government insists upon the right to regulate intra UK trade but that they think it is necessary to give these powers to Ministers now. The UK Parliament could of course grant Ministers such powers at any point so why do it now when the WA contained an undertaking that we would not do such a thing?
I think it is reasonable to infer that this is a shot across the EU's bows, that they cannot rely upon us complying with the WA indefinitely if there is no deal. This is presumably why such attention has been drawn to it. It is not a breach of an international agreement (let alone law) at all at the moment, it is the power to breach it if Ministers are so minded. This is a power we always have. Lewis could have said this power will only be used in consultation with the EU and with their agreement. He chose not to.
I am not comfortable with this tactic but both the header and many of the comments strike me as a little bit hysterical.
What a spineless pair. Their one job is to uphold the law in Government. They are "concerned" but won't be doing a thing about it as they like the car and ministerial allowance. Shameful jellies.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
The truth sometimes hurts. I am glad that you are beginning to realise what a disaster you have helped bring on the country. I hope there are better options for you to vote for next time.
We have 4 more years of this to put up with.
Why is it an objective of yours to "hurt" with the truth? What possible good can come from it other than to make yourself feel better (in the short term since you'll regret this later)?
If you want Johnson gone quickly then act constructively. If you want him to stick around for 4 more years (and maybe you do so you can be even "righter") then please continue to act like an insidious Lefty twat.
I have no particular axe to grind on when BoZo goes, except my bet on a Q3 2021 exit. As the Conservatives have heavily purged their sensible wing to the backbenches or out of parliament altogether, I expect the next leader to be a dimwit too. Perhaps less mendacious, but more industriously malignant.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
Why on Earth should I cut it out. Boris is a bloody disaster and if you’re not pissed off about it there is something wrong with you.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
May`s deal was blocked, chiefly, by the Labour Party. Let`s not re-write history.
Thinking through the politics a bit more - a no deal and its consequences which are directly linked to a government decision to renege on a deal it commended to the electorate is quite a sell. Some, maybe most, 2019 Tories will blame the EU. But Johnson/Cummings need them all to.
A deal is the best way of controlling migration - a central concern of Leavers.
Without it I could see Johnson being outflanked by *both* Starmer and Farage on migration next year. The Tory polling position would be diabolical.
I hope that's not what it takes to get rid of him but I'm not holding my breath.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
Why on Earth should I cut it out. Boris is a bloody disaster and if you’re not pissed off about it there is something wrong with you.
I think the majority of us are pissed off about it, but still thank our lucky stars that it wasn`t Corbyn.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
May`s deal was blocked, chiefly, by the Labour Party. Let`s not re-write history.
May's deal was blocked chiefly by the fact her own Party wouldn't vote for it.
The fact the opposition also opposed it is irrelevant to the issue, the Tory party were the issue here.
And the Tory party will now fully own this mess as Starmer says get on with it..
Thinking through the politics a bit more - a no deal and its consequences which are directly linked to a government decision to renege on a deal it commended to the electorate is quite a sell. Some, maybe most, 2019 Tories will blame the EU. But Johnson/Cummings need them all to.
A deal is the best way of controlling migration - a central concern of Leavers.
Without it I could see Johnson being outflanked by *both* Starmer and Farage on migration next year. The Tory polling position would be diabolical.
I hope that's not what it takes to get rid of him but I'm not holding my breath.
The Tory polling position ***seems*** pretty solid. I think PB is overreacting to this development. Forget the law, it won't cut through (unlike the Cummings stuff, people could relate to that), the bigger question is where is this all heading with the EU. What consequences would this move have for the rest of the WA with the EU?
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
Just a tip: one way to turn Tories against you, and back into Johnson's camp, is to insult those who are now beginning to see the light and working out how to deal with him. "Told you so" and "this is your fault - idiot" aren't very effective arguments.
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
To be fair BigG has a bit of a history of moving towards the light and then realising he's forgotten his coat.
Boris has previously "lost" him on four previous occasions.
Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
Sigh. You can't "tweak" international treaties unilaterally. You can repudiate them in full or you can tweak them by mutual consent. Those are the two options.
Beyond that, whatever you put in domestic law is irrelevant when judging whether the treaty is being adhered to. And if there are any enforcement mechanisms written into that treaty then they will continue to apply. So in this case the UK will still be subject to the rulings of the ECJ, regardless of what changes have been made domestically.
Just accept that on this issue, Philip is a scofflaw. Arguing with him on this is as futile as arguing with Trump.
At best he’s a wind up merchant out to destroy sensible debate here, his opening post this morning shows he is only interested in mischief.
Hopefully this is a one off, and turns out not to be a major issue, but there is a plausuible biological link to the vaccine.
Yes, it is concerning - and it’s also impossible to ascribe any particular odds to it at the moment (and is it not still possible that it was in one of the placebo subjects ?). Until the trial is complete, it’s not really possible to say anything concrete about the risks; at the moment it’s just guesswork, surely ?
Sure, and the people running the trial are sound scientists.
I don't think the trial would have paused if it was a placebo subject though.
I wondered about that too. I was under the impression that such a pause was automatic ? However, the UK trial is single blinded, is it not, so they wouldn’t need to selectively unblind the trial to tell if it was a placebo patient.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
May`s deal was blocked, chiefly, by the Labour Party. Let`s not re-write history.
May's deal was blocked chiefly by the fact her own Party wouldn't vote for it.
The fact the opposition also opposed it is irrelevant to the issue, the Tory party were the issue here.
And the Tory party will now fully own this mess as Starmer says get on with it..
Only about 30 Tories voted against. All the LP needed to do was to abstain. Instead they played party-politics with an issue of massive national importance.
Our party political system has not served us well over this issue and also, I`d argue, over the pandemic issue.
If you want Johnson gone quickly then act constructively. If you want him to stick around for 4 more years (and maybe you do so you can be even "righter") then please continue to act like an insidious Lefty twat.
Nothing any of us posts here is going to have any bearing on how long the malignant grindylow squats in No. 10.
You busted your red, white and blue bollocks to get Boris as PM so at least have the decency to take responsibility.
I would have thought that when the Government actually does it, it will be subject to judicial review, which can be invoked if a public body (such as the Government) acts unlawfully. I'm unaware of any clause which says "unless it's an international law which Britain is party to, in which case no worries".
Thinking through the politics a bit more - a no deal and its consequences which are directly linked to a government decision to renege on a deal it commended to the electorate is quite a sell. Some, maybe most, 2019 Tories will blame the EU. But Johnson/Cummings need them all to.
A deal is the best way of controlling migration - a central concern of Leavers.
Without it I could see Johnson being outflanked by *both* Starmer and Farage on migration next year. The Tory polling position would be diabolical.
I hope that's not what it takes to get rid of him but I'm not holding my breath.
The Tory polling position ***seems*** pretty solid. I think PB is overreacting to this development. Forget the law, it won't cut through (unlike the Cummings stuff, people could relate to that), the bigger question is where is this all heading with the EU. What consequences would this move have for the rest of the WA with the EU?
"Break laws - in a very limited and specific way" is going to cut through - as it's a wonderful line to use...
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
May`s deal was blocked, chiefly, by the Labour Party. Let`s not re-write history.
The government was elected with a majority, the onus is on it not the opposition to pass legislation. The fact May threw away her majority and then couldn’t command her party is what blocked Brexit.
She tried to work with Labour at the very end when it was far too late. But blaming the opposition is disingenuous. The oppositions constitutional job is to oppose, not mitigate the fact Boris defied his own party in an attempt to gain the premiership for himself.
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
Why on Earth should I cut it out. Boris is a bloody disaster and if you’re not pissed off about it there is something wrong with you.
I think the majority of us are pissed off about it, but still thank our lucky stars that it wasn`t Corbyn.
I used to lurk on here during the EU referendum, it was interesting to read a balanced set of views, but having joined it seems most Brexiteers have gone and its developed into a stop Brexit echo chamber.
Not a problem but its very dull and not a coincidence that numbers have fallen
Thinking through the politics a bit more - a no deal and its consequences which are directly linked to a government decision to renege on a deal it commended to the electorate is quite a sell. Some, maybe most, 2019 Tories will blame the EU. But Johnson/Cummings need them all to.
A deal is the best way of controlling migration - a central concern of Leavers.
Without it I could see Johnson being outflanked by *both* Starmer and Farage on migration next year. The Tory polling position would be diabolical.
I hope that's not what it takes to get rid of him but I'm not holding my breath.
The Tory polling position ***seems*** pretty solid. I think PB is overreacting to this development. Forget the law, it won't cut through (unlike the Cummings stuff, people could relate to that), the bigger question is where is this all heading with the EU. What consequences would this move have for the rest of the WA with the EU?
The polling is pretty solid? In the last 12 hours?
Thinking through the politics a bit more - a no deal and its consequences which are directly linked to a government decision to renege on a deal it commended to the electorate is quite a sell. Some, maybe most, 2019 Tories will blame the EU. But Johnson/Cummings need them all to.
A deal is the best way of controlling migration - a central concern of Leavers.
Without it I could see Johnson being outflanked by *both* Starmer and Farage on migration next year. The Tory polling position would be diabolical.
I hope that's not what it takes to get rid of him but I'm not holding my breath.
The Tory polling position ***seems*** pretty solid. I think PB is overreacting to this development. Forget the law, it won't cut through (unlike the Cummings stuff, people could relate to that), the bigger question is where is this all heading with the EU. What consequences would this move have for the rest of the WA with the EU?
"Break laws - in a very limited and specific way" is going to cut through - as it's a wonderful line to use...
Thatcher would probably never have signed the Withdrawal Agreement with the Irish Sea Border and gone straight to No Deal so it would not have been an issue anyway
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.
Always good to have a late convert.
Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
That is political nonsense
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Why not say “sorry, I was wrong”?
I am not wrong in wanting brexit concluded and Boris has been unequivocal in leaving and still has 40% support
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
You could have had a legal, Brexit under May. Boris blocked that. You then handed him the keys to number 10 and chaos has reigned ever since. We are now a basket case.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
Cut it out Jonathan.
Why on Earth should I cut it out. Boris is a bloody disaster and if you’re not pissed off about it there is something wrong with you.
I think the majority of us are pissed off about it, but still thank our lucky stars that it wasn`t Corbyn.
What would Corbyn have done worse?
Cripple us even more economically than is the case, and been eager to take even harsher authoritarian state action. I think he may have seen it as an opportunity to hobble liberal democracy itself.
Comments
As I understand the government’s position, there are certain provisions in the Protocol that were to be agreed by a mutual Committee.
This law is in respect of what happens if the Committee does not agree. The EU is saying the status quo ante should apply. The U.K. is saying Ministers have the right to decide unilaterally.
Without having read the specific clauses (so I am assuming that it isn’t spelt out in black and white) that is not an unreasonable dispute. Both sides are marking out an extreme position which gives them an advantage.
Everything else is bullshit (especially the governments media handling which passes all understanding on how inept it is).
Apply that to Corbyn and the labour party and in so doing attack all those who kept him in place including many moderates
Of course this isn't news: we've always known Boris doesn't think the rules apply to him and he can do what he likes.
Unfortunately for now he's inflicting his personality on the whole country.
But that hasn't happened. This is a treaty this present government signed knowing full well that there was a risk of a break down in negotiations. You simply can't ask other governments to trust you when it's you yourself that are changing your minds..
You don't speak for many others though and you certainly don't get to project your mania on to them.
No crap or emotive reporting
No taking the EU position
Your tireless spin is tragic
I am an absolutist on democracy viewing it to trump everything else, including yes international law. This isn't a new development it is entirely consistent with everything I have ever written.
We'll get far shitter trade deals, with far tighter enforcement mechanisms, if we get any at all.
https://twitter.com/PeterMannionMP/status/1303595299399774209
Popcorn for PMQs at lunchtime!
It might be HYUFD's.
He went too far for me yesterday and he should go, but it does not alter the fact we have to leave the EU
Until the trial is complete, it’s not really possible to say anything concrete about the risks; at the moment it’s just guesswork, surely ?
(edit) It is a pretty rare condition, which makes it less likely to have occurred purely by chance:
https://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Related-Conditions/Transverse-Myelitis
I didn't vote for Johnson to be leader (and I hate him) and your post has already pissed me off this morning.
Just a friendly tip.
And I did not vote for him as leader in the ballot
At least the nuclear argument is just a function of stupidity.
It's the deal BoZo signed, that you lot were cheering to the rafters.
May told him not to.
The DUP told him not to.
He did it anyway.
The important people go about as they see fit.
We have 4 more years of this to put up with.
Dumbos.
If you vote for Boris, this is what you get.
I don't think the trial would have paused if it was a placebo subject though.
Cheers! Nice work. 10/10.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1303596897496641536
The context of this is that the EU gave NI a special status with additional rights of access to the Single Market through Eire. The price of exercising this power would be that the EU may choose to withdraw those privileges. How significant that is for NI will very much depend upon what deal the UK has with the EU. In the event of a no deal it might be very significant and unwind some of the Irish peace accords which are built around the whole of Ireland being a single economy.
What I am finding strange about this is not that the UK government insists upon the right to regulate intra UK trade but that they think it is necessary to give these powers to Ministers now. The UK Parliament could of course grant Ministers such powers at any point so why do it now when the WA contained an undertaking that we would not do such a thing?
I think it is reasonable to infer that this is a shot across the EU's bows, that they cannot rely upon us complying with the WA indefinitely if there is no deal. This is presumably why such attention has been drawn to it. It is not a breach of an international agreement (let alone law) at all at the moment, it is the power to breach it if Ministers are so minded. This is a power we always have. Lewis could have said this power will only be used in consultation with the EU and with their agreement. He chose not to.
I am not comfortable with this tactic but both the header and many of the comments strike me as a little bit hysterical.
If you don't like what the Government does then vote for a new Government to change the law at the next election.
And that includes overriding any treaties this Government agrees if you feel it is necessary to do so.
If you want Johnson gone quickly then act constructively. If you want him to stick around for 4 more years (and maybe you do so you can be even "righter") then please continue to act like an insidious Lefty twat.
If they believed that they are not in breach of the Withdrawal agreement then perhaps they shouldn't have signed it in the first place.
Regardless, the obvious thing to do would have been to take a step back and ask the question whether there is a realistic prospect of the EU attempting to prevent exports of food from GB to Northern Ireland. And bearing in mind that this would have prevented exports to Eire, and likely retaliatory action with all that involves.
The answer is clearly "no".
Arguing with him on this is as futile as arguing with Trump.
You told them to go out and have a good time, "it will all be back to normal by Christmas".
https://twitter.com/MinnieStephC4/status/1303600051902656517
Telegraph.
I fear for the next generation of Etonian politicians if he does.
Without it I could see Johnson being outflanked by *both* Starmer and Farage on migration next year. The Tory polling position would be diabolical.
I hope that's not what it takes to get rid of him but I'm not holding my breath.
The fact the opposition also opposed it is irrelevant to the issue, the Tory party were the issue here.
And the Tory party will now fully own this mess as Starmer says get on with it..
However, the UK trial is single blinded, is it not, so they wouldn’t need to selectively unblind the trial to tell if it was a placebo patient.
I guess we’ll find out pretty soon.
Our party political system has not served us well over this issue and also, I`d argue, over the pandemic issue.
You busted your red, white and blue bollocks to get Boris as PM so at least have the decency to take responsibility.
She tried to work with Labour at the very end when it was far too late. But blaming the opposition is disingenuous. The oppositions constitutional job is to oppose, not mitigate the fact Boris defied his own party in an attempt to gain the premiership for himself.
Not a problem but its very dull and not a coincidence that numbers have fallen