The way to build trillion dollar tech companies in the UK is surely to stop selling them to any passing American when they're million dollar tech companies.
The way to build trillion dollar tech companies in the UK is to have a huge domestic market like in the US and China, perhaps by being part of the EU single market. Ahh...
Except that some of our existing successful tech companies, such as gambling websites, were never even covered by the single market, because the single market in services was a total joke.
What have the Democrats got against having a free trade deal with the UK?
They have always said they wouldn't deal with us, which seems strange as we are supposed to be close allies.
The Democrats have long preferred France and Germany and Ireland to us, we may dislike Republican Presidents but they tend to favour us over our continental neighbours
Well yes Trump actually seems to like us and we could really use some friends right now.
I remember when Obama gave Gordon Brown a present of some old region 1 DVDs that you can't actually play in the UK for their big meeting.
Yes @Philip_Thompson had better start hoping for Trump to win because that's probably our best chance at some kind of good deal with the US.
Well surely everyone should be hoping for a good deal with the US right now.
I can't understand the love of the democrats here considering they've constantly stated they're going to make things as difficult as possible for the UK.
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
But that's my point. You wanted a nice, reasonable Brexit. But you were a pawn. It could never happen. Because of the loonies on your side. They used you. And of course the irony is that they won't be happy come 1st Feb either.
Brexit was always a fantasy because it meant too many different things to too many people. And so it is turning out.
That was my point.
I wasn't a pawn, and have never been a pawn.
There are loonies on both sides. If there's a sensible argument to be made here (which I will take responsibility for) it's that in any revolutionary act you get polarisation to the extremes, with moderates crushed in the middle.
One pole wins, the other loses, and then that pole proceeds to destroy everything.
You then have to slowly rebuild.
Maybe I was naive. But I haven't been a pawn.
Fine you went in with your eyes open. But it wasn't too difficult to see that whatever "your" (and @Richard_Tyndall's) version of Brexit was, it was never going to be achieved.
Brexit as a concept is just a fantasy. Take back control, reclaim sovereignty. Pick and choose which bits we keep, which we jettison. Means nothing. In practicality, because of our past 40 years it could never be delivered. Except if we had a government that was happy to torch the reputation and economic prospects of its own country.
You have the Union Flag on your posts. You should be weeping at what the Brexiters have done to the UK.
Hmm - thanks. It's not a fantasy. It's perfectly deliverable. It's just it involves some difficult choices.
I wouldn't overplay your hand. The deal is there aside from state aid and fish, which could and would have both been agreed.
It's just some nutters in Government are obsessing about totally pure State Aid and want to blow it (and the WA) up over it.
I'm sure I could amend your post slightly and insert "Communism" for "Brexit".
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
Indeed. That's the same argument China or North Korea make when they say that foreign criticism of their domestic actions is a breach of sovereignty.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You keep making this point and nobody is disputing it.
This breach of international law will have a negative effect on our international relations.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
Indeed. That's the same argument China or North Korea make when they say that foreign criticism of their domestic actions is a breach of sovereignty.
And they were right, which is why we could do nothing about it.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
It doesn't say anything of the sort. It says remedies are only available under domestic law if parliament has enacted it. So I can't force another party including the government to conform to an international treaty obligation through the UK courts unless there is domestic law to support that.
Remedies are not the same as obligations. Braverman deliberately conflates the two.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
Indeed. That's the same argument China or North Korea make when they say that foreign criticism of their domestic actions is a breach of sovereignty.
Its obvious to everyone as well. Of course there is no international court that is going to send in enforcement officers or arrest the PM. What will happen is we will get worse, more limited deals with almost every other country on every matter, for decades, because our word will not be trusted and trust is at the heart of agreements, international, business or personal.
I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
But that's my point. You wanted a nice, reasonable Brexit. But you were a pawn. It could never happen. Because of the loonies on your side. They used you. And of course the irony is that they won't be happy come 1st Feb either.
Brexit was always a fantasy because it meant too many different things to too many people. And so it is turning out.
That was my point.
I wasn't a pawn, and have never been a pawn.
There are loonies on both sides. If there's a sensible argument to be made here (which I will take responsibility for) it's that in any revolutionary act you get polarisation to the extremes, with moderates crushed in the middle.
One pole wins, the other loses, and then that pole proceeds to destroy everything.
You then have to slowly rebuild.
Maybe I was naive. But I haven't been a pawn.
Fine you went in with your eyes open. But it wasn't too difficult to see that whatever "your" (and @Richard_Tyndall's) version of Brexit was, it was never going to be achieved.
Brexit as a concept is just a fantasy. Take back control, reclaim sovereignty. Pick and choose which bits we keep, which we jettison. Means nothing. In practicality, because of our past 40 years it could never be delivered. Except if we had a government that was happy to torch the reputation and economic prospects of its own country.
You have the Union Flag on your posts. You should be weeping at what the Brexiters have done to the UK.
Hmm - thanks. It's not a fantasy. It's perfectly deliverable. It's just it involves some difficult choices.
I wouldn't overplay your hand. The deal is there aside from state aid and fish, which could and would have both been agreed.
It's just some nutters in Government are obsessing about totally pure State Aid and want to blow it (and the WA) up over it.
I'm sure I could amend your post slightly and insert "Communism" for "Brexit".
Interesting that there's speculation Labour might abstain on the bill next week. If they do its surely hard to make the story that this is some sort of legal outrage surely?
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You keep making this point and nobody is disputing it.
This breach of international law will have a negative effect on our international relations.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
Interesting that there's speculation Labour might abstain on the bill next week. If they do its surely hard to make the story that this is some sort of legal outrage surely?
Why? Labour are not in charge and dont want to get drawn into a trap. The Conservative party won the election promising to deliver a good Brexit - let them be accountable for it.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
Certain Supreme Court judges have in the past hinted about the possibility of limits in the common law on Parliamentary Supremacy.
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
But that's my point. You wanted a nice, reasonable Brexit. But you were a pawn. It could never happen. Because of the loonies on your side. They used you. And of course the irony is that they won't be happy come 1st Feb either.
Brexit was always a fantasy because it meant too many different things to too many people. And so it is turning out.
That was my point.
I wasn't a pawn, and have never been a pawn.
There are loonies on both sides. If there's a sensible argument to be made here (which I will take responsibility for) it's that in any revolutionary act you get polarisation to the extremes, with moderates crushed in the middle.
One pole wins, the other loses, and then that pole proceeds to destroy everything.
You then have to slowly rebuild.
Maybe I was naive. But I haven't been a pawn.
Fine you went in with your eyes open. But it wasn't too difficult to see that whatever "your" (and @Richard_Tyndall's) version of Brexit was, it was never going to be achieved.
Brexit as a concept is just a fantasy. Take back control, reclaim sovereignty. Pick and choose which bits we keep, which we jettison. Means nothing. In practicality, because of our past 40 years it could never be delivered. Except if we had a government that was happy to torch the reputation and economic prospects of its own country.
You have the Union Flag on your posts. You should be weeping at what the Brexiters have done to the UK.
Hmm - thanks. It's not a fantasy. It's perfectly deliverable. It's just it involves some difficult choices.
I wouldn't overplay your hand. The deal is there aside from state aid and fish, which could and would have both been agreed.
It's just some nutters in Government are obsessing about totally pure State Aid and want to blow it (and the WA) up over it.
I'm sure I could amend your post slightly and insert "Communism" for "Brexit".
Not really mate.
It is possible, it's just never been done properly.
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
That isn't what the Supreme court said last time round (regardless of the fact that is what you think they said) it it wouldn't be what they said this time around.
What they would be saying is that the Internal Market Bill is illegal because of its disregard to International Treaties.
I'm in good company with those staunch Remainers Lord Lamont and Lord Howard on this.
All Brexiteers should be looking to their conscience on this.
If a threat has been made that the EU will use their interpretation of the WA to behave in an unjustified manner toward Northern Ireland, it seems right that the Government now takes steps to ensure that that cannot happen.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
Certain Supreme Court judges have in the past hinted about the possibility of limits in the common law on Parliamentary Supremacy.
And you think those limits could extend to international law?
That would be a terrible and undemocratic situation to be in.
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
But that's my point. You wanted a nice, reasonable Brexit. But you were a pawn. It could never happen. Because of the loonies on your side. They used you. And of course the irony is that they won't be happy come 1st Feb either.
Brexit was always a fantasy because it meant too many different things to too many people. And so it is turning out.
That was my point.
I wasn't a pawn, and have never been a pawn.
There are loonies on both sides. If there's a sensible argument to be made here (which I will take responsibility for) it's that in any revolutionary act you get polarisation to the extremes, with moderates crushed in the middle.
One pole wins, the other loses, and then that pole proceeds to destroy everything.
You then have to slowly rebuild.
Maybe I was naive. But I haven't been a pawn.
Fine you went in with your eyes open. But it wasn't too difficult to see that whatever "your" (and @Richard_Tyndall's) version of Brexit was, it was never going to be achieved.
Brexit as a concept is just a fantasy. Take back control, reclaim sovereignty. Pick and choose which bits we keep, which we jettison. Means nothing. In practicality, because of our past 40 years it could never be delivered. Except if we had a government that was happy to torch the reputation and economic prospects of its own country.
You have the Union Flag on your posts. You should be weeping at what the Brexiters have done to the UK.
Hmm - thanks. It's not a fantasy. It's perfectly deliverable. It's just it involves some difficult choices.
I wouldn't overplay your hand. The deal is there aside from state aid and fish, which could and would have both been agreed.
It's just some nutters in Government are obsessing about totally pure State Aid and want to blow it (and the WA) up over it.
I'm sure I could amend your post slightly and insert "Communism" for "Brexit".
Not really mate.
It is possible, it's just never been done properly.
If you want a really good autocorrect my Samsung tablet has just changed MFHA to Muhammed.
I see Sweden, where mask wearing is not mandatory, has been added to the travel corridor list. Their cases are not going up unlike most other countries in Europe where mask wearing is mandatory. It may have something to do with this:
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
That isn't what the Supreme court said last time round (regardless of the fact that is what you think they said) it it wouldn't be what they said this time around.
What they would be saying is that the Internal Market Bill is illegal because of its disregard to International Treaties.
Parliament has to have the right to disregard international treaties or we cease to be a sovereign democracy.
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
Not surprising. Those countries relationships with the UK depend on the UK/EU and EU/Country relationships being sorted out. If the UK has seriously pissed off the EU it makes it harder for third countries to come to an agreement with the UK.
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
But that's my point. You wanted a nice, reasonable Brexit. But you were a pawn. It could never happen. Because of the loonies on your side. They used you. And of course the irony is that they won't be happy come 1st Feb either.
Brexit was always a fantasy because it meant too many different things to too many people. And so it is turning out.
That was my point.
I wasn't a pawn, and have never been a pawn.
There are loonies on both sides. If there's a sensible argument to be made here (which I will take responsibility for) it's that in any revolutionary act you get polarisation to the extremes, with moderates crushed in the middle.
One pole wins, the other loses, and then that pole proceeds to destroy everything.
You then have to slowly rebuild.
Maybe I was naive. But I haven't been a pawn.
Fine you went in with your eyes open. But it wasn't too difficult to see that whatever "your" (and @Richard_Tyndall's) version of Brexit was, it was never going to be achieved.
Brexit as a concept is just a fantasy. Take back control, reclaim sovereignty. Pick and choose which bits we keep, which we jettison. Means nothing. In practicality, because of our past 40 years it could never be delivered. Except if we had a government that was happy to torch the reputation and economic prospects of its own country.
You have the Union Flag on your posts. You should be weeping at what the Brexiters have done to the UK.
Hmm - thanks. It's not a fantasy. It's perfectly deliverable. It's just it involves some difficult choices.
I wouldn't overplay your hand. The deal is there aside from state aid and fish, which could and would have both been agreed.
It's just some nutters in Government are obsessing about totally pure State Aid and want to blow it (and the WA) up over it.
I'm sure I could amend your post slightly and insert "Communism" for "Brexit".
Not really mate.
It is possible, it's just never been done properly.
If you want a really good autocorrect my Samsung tablet has just changed MFHA to Muhammed.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
Certain Supreme Court judges have in the past hinted about the possibility of limits in the common law on Parliamentary Supremacy.
And you think those limits could extend to international law?
That would be a terrible and undemocratic situation to be in.
I was making no comment on what they could be, simply that it has been discussed in judicial opinions, and thus there’s the theoretical possibility that the courts could try and use the common law to constrain Parliament. 🤷♂️ Probably something like if a Parliament tried to remove elections, etc.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Stupidity - as Sherlock Holmes said Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Interesting theory. That may indeed have been a hope.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
Canada wouldn't touch us with a shitty hockey stick. Not sure about the other two either.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
But it ain't going to get through the Lords.
Maybe the Government can get around to abolishing the Lords at some point.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
Certain Supreme Court judges have in the past hinted about the possibility of limits in the common law on Parliamentary Supremacy.
And you think those limits could extend to international law?
That would be a terrible and undemocratic situation to be in.
I was making no comment on what they could be, simply that it has been discussed in judicial opinions, and thus there’s the theoretical possibility that the courts could try and use the common law to constrain Parliament. 🤷♂️ Probably something like if a Parliament tried to remove elections, etc.
I wrote an essay which touched on this last year.
Indeed, if the Courts overruled Parliamentary statute that would be the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil War when King Charles 1st tried to ignore Parliament.
I agree they would only intervene if Parliament tried to stop general elections every 4 to 5 years
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
But it ain't going to get through the Lords.
The Lords can only delay it for a year
That's long enough when we want an Act in place by 1 January.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
First of all yes, entirely possible, but then why? With an 80-seat majority why are they worrying about the LOTO?
The reason IMO is hubris - they thought that the that border in the Irish Sea would be a stain on their Brexit and infuriate too many potential allies.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
But it ain't going to get through the Lords.
The Lords can only delay it for a year
It needs to be on the books in under 4 months......
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
It is telling that Johnson was annoyed with Starmer at PMQs for not bringing up the Internal Market issue, so definitely.
But I also think Johnson didn't have any intention of respecting the Withdrawal Agreement. We asked at the time whether he negotiated in bad faith or simply didn't read the WA as no sensible PM would have signed up to it.
If Labour abstain on this the Commons will have endorsed this by hundreds of votes. I don't see how the Lords can continue to reject it if the Commons keeps "ping pong"-ing it back to the Lords with the Opposition not even opposing it in the Commons.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
Certain Supreme Court judges have in the past hinted about the possibility of limits in the common law on Parliamentary Supremacy.
And you think those limits could extend to international law?
That would be a terrible and undemocratic situation to be in.
I was making no comment on what they could be, simply that it has been discussed in judicial opinions, and thus there’s the theoretical possibility that the courts could try and use the common law to constrain Parliament. 🤷♂️ Probably something like if a Parliament tried to remove elections, etc.
I wrote an essay which touched on this last year.
Indeed, if the Courts overruled Parliamentary statute that would be the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil War when King Charles 1st tried to ignore Parliament.
I agree they would only intervene if Parliament tried to stop general elections every 4 to 5 years
That's the one time even the monarch would refuse Royal Assent probably.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
But it ain't going to get through the Lords.
The Lords can only delay it for a year
Using the Parliament Act to break a treaty that was in your manifesto?
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
Because a key deliverable of the Brexit project is and was a US-UK trade deal. Not trade, but a trade deal.
I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?
And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
First of all yes, entirely possible, but then why? With an 80-seat majority why are they worrying about the LOTO?
The reason IMO is hubris - they thought that the that border in the Irish Sea would be a stain on their Brexit and infuriate too many potential allies.
They think. Presumably they still think it. If they really think that they can get everything including weakening the NI protocol into the bargain, something must have given them that impression - which bodes very well for how the negotiations are progressing.
I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?
And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
If Labour abstain on this the Commons will have endorsed this by hundreds of votes. I don't see how the Lords can continue to reject it if the Commons keeps "ping pong"-ing it back to the Lords with the Opposition not even opposing it in the Commons.
The Lords will back what was in the Tory manifesto - going forward with the deal as agreed.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Quite right Mike. Apparently Boris was absolutely furious when Sir Keir destroyed him at PMQs - was shouting and screaming at minions etc. - so was probably out for revenge. However anger is not a suitable emotion from which to launch a political manoeuvre, hence the poor judgement and shambolic execution.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
First of all yes, entirely possible, but then why? With an 80-seat majority why are they worrying about the LOTO?
The reason IMO is hubris - they thought that the that border in the Irish Sea would be a stain on their Brexit and infuriate too many potential allies.
They think. Presumably they still think it. If they really think that they can get everything including weakening the NI protocol into the bargain, something must have given them that impression - which bodes very well for how the negotiations are progressing.
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
Because a key deliverable of the Brexit project is and was a US-UK trade deal. Not trade, but a trade deal.
For some people, not all. Unease about TTIP was a big reason why many voted *for* Brexit.
I have never been in favour of signing up to huge trade deals in the midst of leaving another. I favoured breathing space and quiet reflection, and a few years period of trading with other nations with tariff arrangements as they stood, before carefully and slowly entering in to any post-Brexit commitments.
This would also have calmed expectations - all the 'fear' and its effect on the markets would be done with in one go - the rest would be completely known.
I still think Brexit would have won had that been the plan.
The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.
Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.
This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
Because a key deliverable of the Brexit project is and was a US-UK trade deal. Not trade, but a trade deal.
For some people, not all. Unease about TTIP was a big reason why many voted *for* Brexit.
I have never been in favour of signing up to huge trade deals in the midst of leaving another. I favoured breathing space and quiet reflection, and a few years period of trading with other nations with tariff arrangements as they stood, before carefully and slowly entering in to any post-Brexit commitments.
This would also have calmed expectations - all the 'fear' and its effect on the markets would be done with in one go - the rest would be completely known.
I still think Brexit would have won had that been the plan.
Well it is a key deliverable for the government regardless of your personal opinion. It is quite right for the public to hold the government to account and scrutiny on their promises and they promised a fantastic UK-US trade deal (I think expected by the year end.....) not continued UK-US trade.
There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.
Someone posted earlier that the EU have been unhelpful - that's clearly true, and their motivation for being so is obvious (no more splitters).
A failure to agree will be horrible for the UK, but I think it's quite clear that it'll be worse for the EU (I don't expect anyone to agree with this).
The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.
Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.
This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.
The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.
Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
People on here have a lot of faith in SKS's political abilities forgetting the disaster that he presided over last year in Labour's anti Brexit policy
So it turns out Newcastle United Comedy Club lied again. I AM SHOCKED.
The Premier League has insisted it has not rejected the Saudi Arabia-backed bid for Newcastle.
In the latest twist in a saga which has rumbled on for months, the governing body has hit back after the club issued a statement on Wednesday evening.
The Premier League’s response said: “The Premier League was disappointed and surprised by the Newcastle United Football Club statement regarding its potential takeover by PCP Capital Partners, the Reuben Brothers and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia (PIF).
“The club’s assertion that the Premier League has rejected the takeover is incorrect.
“The Premier League Board has, on a number of occasions, given its opinion about which entities it believes would have control over the club should the consortium proceed with the acquisition. That opinion is based on legal advice.
“This means the potential takeover could proceed to the next stage should the relevant entities provide all appropriate information. They would then be subject to a suitability assessment by the Board. As an alternative, the Board has repeatedly offered independent arbitration as a way forward since June.
“It is also incorrect to suggest these decisions were taken by any individual; they were agreed unanimously by all Premier League Board members.”
There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.
Someone posted earlier that the EU have been unhelpful - that's clearly true, and their motivation for being so is obvious (no more splitters).
A failure to agree will be horrible for the UK, but I think it's quite clear that it'll be worse for the EU (I don't expect anyone to agree with this).
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
Because a key deliverable of the Brexit project is and was a US-UK trade deal. Not trade, but a trade deal.
For some people, not all. Unease about TTIP was a big reason why many voted *for* Brexit.
I have never been in favour of signing up to huge trade deals in the midst of leaving another. I favoured breathing space and quiet reflection, and a few years period of trading with other nations with tariff arrangements as they stood, before carefully and slowly entering in to any post-Brexit commitments.
This would also have calmed expectations - all the 'fear' and its effect on the markets would be done with in one go - the rest would be completely known.
I still think Brexit would have won had that been the plan.
Well it is a key deliverable for the government regardless of your personal opinion. It is quite right for the public to hold the government to account and scrutiny on their promises and they promised a fantastic UK-US trade deal (I think expected by the year end.....) not continued UK-US trade.
Well I have not been aware of that promise, and if such a thing was in the manifesto, then it was extremely stupid, as a 'deal' is clearly made up of two parties, and the US side could not be guaranteed. Another argument in favour of my period of self-imposed trade singledom.
There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.
Someone posted earlier that the EU have been unhelpful - that's clearly true, and their motivation for being so is obvious (no more splitters).
A failure to agree will be horrible for the UK, but I think it's quite clear that it'll be worse for the EU (I don't expect anyone to agree with this).
Happily the EU is going to back down.
So what's your view on Article V of NATO.
I mean if you object to this, you must object to that.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
You think you know more about this than Cambridge’s head of Public Law?
Laughable.
You also still haven’t read or absorbed my post, or the tweets from Mark Elliott. This is not about whether Parliament can pass legislation or not. Of course it can. It just can’t release itself from the obligations the executive has bound us by in international law.
All that matters is what Parliament does.
Just like when Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum first. Just like when the French and Dutch Parliaments voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Constitution being rejected by their voters in a referendum first.
The EU was happy to facilitate its member states governments going back on their own word to their own voters.
The Lisbon Treaty has absolutely no relevance here. What Parliament does changes the law in this country, nobody is disputing that. But it cannot vote to change Britain’s legal obligations under international law unilaterally. That’s the point Mark Elliott is making.
The executive signs treaties. It freely signed the treaty. Parliament then gives effect to it in domestic law. Parliament repealing that act does not change our international law obligations. We then become in breach.
You argue that it doesn’t matter, and that’s fine. You may well be right, but you also may well be wrong. Let’s see what the consequences are.
But the Supreme Court's judgement explicitly says the government can change Britain's legal obligations under international law unilaterally - on British soil - .
The judgement is clear. On British soil Parliament is sovereign.
I don't think there is any Supreme Court judgement that says that - as the judgement you are looking at doesn't look into international law and was purely about UK law..
Because that is the law.
International law is about international relations, there is no International Supreme Court to settle this.
You once again miss the point of my statement - when presented with a case that has international aspects, firstly the Supreme court will have a reason to listen to it (as precedent hasn't been set) and secondly the end result may be different..
You think the Supreme Court could rule that Parliament is not sovereign?
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
That isn't what the Supreme court said last time round (regardless of the fact that is what you think they said) it it wouldn't be what they said this time around.
What they would be saying is that the Internal Market Bill is illegal because of its disregard to International Treaties.
Parliament has to have the right to disregard international treaties or we cease to be a sovereign democracy.
But this bill does not attempt to disregard a treaty. It attempts to ignore parts of it but not others. If we want to renege on the treaty and take the consequences that is one thing. And would actually be legal even if politically stupid. But we do not have the right to unilaterally amend a treaty and then expect the other parties to continue to abide by it.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
People on here have a lot of faith in SKS's political abilities forgetting the disaster that he presided over last year in Labour's anti Brexit policy
That was before he became leader. That was then this is now
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
People on here have a lot of faith in SKS's political abilities forgetting the disaster that he presided over last year in Labour's anti Brexit policy
What disaster - he was in a position where he was trying to defend both a large number of Red Wall Brexit seats (didn't work out well) and remain voting seats. In reality he had little choice but to try to keep both sides happy which meant an impossible balancing act.
The way to build trillion dollar tech companies in the UK is surely to stop selling them to any passing American when they're million dollar tech companies.
We sold Skyscanner to the Chinese when it was a billion pound company.
The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.
Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.
This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.
The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.
Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
There never was going to be a satisfactory outcome for everyone. That is the nature of politics. But this has nothing to do with that. This is all about personal aggrandisement by Johnson.
I see Sweden, where mask wearing is not mandatory, has been added to the travel corridor list. Their cases are not going up unlike most other countries in Europe where mask wearing is mandatory. It may have something to do with this:
Overall I`m a convert to the rationale behind mask-wearing in certain situations. However, I do have one concern (not picked up in your article) and a condition.
I`m concerned that those displaying virus symptoms will feel it is OK, entitled even, to leave their house because they are wearing a mask. In this instance, masks are counter-productive, indeed dangerous.
The condition relates to the material used. I only recently learned that the disposable masks that everyone wears are made from single-use plastic. The environmental damage from their disposal - which will linger for centuries - will be appalling. They should be banned worldwide in favour of paper construction or other biodegradable material.
There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.
Someone posted earlier that the EU have been unhelpful - that's clearly true, and their motivation for being so is obvious (no more splitters).
A failure to agree will be horrible for the UK, but I think it's quite clear that it'll be worse for the EU (I don't expect anyone to agree with this).
Happily the EU is going to back down.
So what's your view on Article V of NATO.
I mean if you object to this, you must object to that.
I have no view on, or knowledge of Article V. I'm not sure I've objected to anything. Do elaborate.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Stupidity - as Sherlock Holmes said Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Cummings and Johnson are a bit stupid on the "Other people are autonomous individuals who won't automatically do the thing we want" front? Not that impossible.
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
People on here have a lot of faith in SKS's political abilities forgetting the disaster that he presided over last year in Labour's anti Brexit policy
That was before he became leader. That was then this is now
An alien from Mars could have spotted the golden opportunity Labour had last year. Instead SKS decided to pursue a policy which led to their worst election defeat in decades. Why do you think he is suddenly a political titan?
So US is totally bizarre, EU an evil superstate, China a rogue superpower threat - who exactly is global Britain hoping to trade with? South Korea, Canada and Switzerland?
We trade with all those countries - in the case of the US, very successfully. Apart from the EU, with no trade deal in sight. Why do remainers always try to conflate 'trade deals' with 'trade' and expect everyone to buy it like we're 5 years old?
Because a key deliverable of the Brexit project is and was a US-UK trade deal. Not trade, but a trade deal.
For some people, not all. Unease about TTIP was a big reason why many voted *for* Brexit.
I have never been in favour of signing up to huge trade deals in the midst of leaving another. I favoured breathing space and quiet reflection, and a few years period of trading with other nations with tariff arrangements as they stood, before carefully and slowly entering in to any post-Brexit commitments.
This would also have calmed expectations - all the 'fear' and its effect on the markets would be done with in one go - the rest would be completely known.
I still think Brexit would have won had that been the plan.
Well it is a key deliverable for the government regardless of your personal opinion. It is quite right for the public to hold the government to account and scrutiny on their promises and they promised a fantastic UK-US trade deal (I think expected by the year end.....) not continued UK-US trade.
Well I have not been aware of that promise, and if such a thing was in the manifesto, then it was extremely stupid, as a 'deal' is clearly made up of two parties, and the US side could not be guaranteed. Another argument in favour of my period of self-imposed trade singledom.
"Our goals for British trade are accordingly ambitious. We aim to have 80 per cent of UK trade covered by free trade agreements within the next three years, starting with the USA"
Finally we agree, the manifesto and its authors were stupid.
The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.
Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.
This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.
I suspect he will be remembered in history - the problem is that it won't be glorious - far more Eden than Churchill.
I believe the House of Lords has the power to delay this legislation for a year. The Salisbury Convention does not apply, as this measure was not in the Conservative manifesto in 2019. A lot can happen in a year. What is the House of Lords for anyway?
And, in any case, the Salisbury Convention was derived from a Parliament more than half a century ago. We are told that no Parliament may bind is successor, in any case, so the Lords are free to do as they choose.
And the Commons would be entitled to abolish the Lords.
Good luck persuading the Conservative Party to destroy the House of Lords where it enjoys a permanent majority. Dominic Cummings is not a Conservative but the MPs are (by definition).
MY view is that the Cummmings/Johnson move to flout international law was actually a wheeze to screw Starmer - only the LAB leader didn't play ball. They wanted him to launch high handed attacks on their plan but got instead silence. I can't think of any other explanation.
Yes, Starmer is playing a blinder, so far. Silence is golden. Do not interfere when the enemy is tearing itself apart, which it is. He will stick the knife in when the time is ripe, I think - but that's not yet.
People on here have a lot of faith in SKS's political abilities forgetting the disaster that he presided over last year in Labour's anti Brexit policy
That was before he became leader. That was then this is now
An alien from Mars could have spotted the golden opportunity Labour had last year. Instead SKS decided to pursue a policy which led to their worst election defeat in decades. Why do you think he is suddenly a political titan?
What opportunity? Could you spell it out for people who are pretending to be dumb...
The very best result next week would be for Parliament to vote down the Internal Market Bill. I hope there are enough Tory rebels to make sure this does not go through.
Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.
This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.
The problem is there is no satisfactory Brexit for everyone.
Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
Although they haven’t got a clue what no deal WTO brexit means, anyway it’s their project let them get on with it.
Comments
I can't understand the love of the democrats here considering they've constantly stated they're going to make things as difficult as possible for the UK.
That's the same argument China or North Korea make when they say that foreign criticism of their domestic actions is a breach of sovereignty.
This breach of international law will have a negative effect on our international relations.
What's sauce for the goose . . .
Remedies are not the same as obligations. Braverman deliberately conflates the two.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1304097607548047367
All Brexiteers should be looking to their conscience on this.
That would be rather a landmark ruling. I find that hard to believe they would do that.
What they would be saying is that the Internal Market Bill is illegal because of its disregard to International Treaties.
That would be a terrible and undemocratic situation to be in.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/19/swedens-tegnell-wearing-face-masks-may-be-very-dangerous/
Haven't seen the latest post-Six guidance.
I wrote an essay which touched on this last year.
Bad governance compounded by atrocious politics:
https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1304096951747719171?s=20
North Korea perhaps?
I agree they would only intervene if Parliament tried to stop general elections every 4 to 5 years
The reason IMO is hubris - they thought that the that border in the Irish Sea would be a stain on their Brexit and infuriate too many potential allies.
But I also think Johnson didn't have any intention of respecting the Withdrawal Agreement. We asked at the time whether he negotiated in bad faith or simply didn't read the WA as no sensible PM would have signed up to it.
I have never been in favour of signing up to huge trade deals in the midst of leaving another. I favoured breathing space and quiet reflection, and a few years period of trading with other nations with tariff arrangements as they stood, before carefully and slowly entering in to any post-Brexit commitments.
This would also have calmed expectations - all the 'fear' and its effect on the markets would be done with in one go - the rest would be completely known.
I still think Brexit would have won had that been the plan.
Strangely this is not about Brexit. That is just the battlefield on which this is being played out. Brexit could happen perfectly well to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Leave voters (and given the alternative most Remain voters as well) without this idiocy.
This is all about Johnson and his delusions that he is another Churchill. A 'meh' Bexit where things basically get sorted out without a huge fanfare of 'Victory over the Enemy' doesn't suit him at all. He has an eye for history and thinks that if it isn't 'glorious' then it isn't worth doing.
There can be no place for foreign intervention in UK politics no matter how mad they get.
Someone posted earlier that the EU have been unhelpful - that's clearly true, and their motivation for being so is obvious (no more splitters).
A failure to agree will be horrible for the UK, but I think it's quite clear that it'll be worse for the EU (I don't expect anyone to agree with this).
Happily the EU is going to back down.
Diehard Remainers stlll oppose Brexit completely and want to rejoin the EU. Moderate Remainers and moderate Leavers may accept an EEA or EEA style FTA compromise which is the most the EU will give us but most Leavers would prefer No Deal WTO terms Brexit to that
The Premier League has insisted it has not rejected the Saudi Arabia-backed bid for Newcastle.
In the latest twist in a saga which has rumbled on for months, the governing body has hit back after the club issued a statement on Wednesday evening.
The Premier League’s response said: “The Premier League was disappointed and surprised by the Newcastle United Football Club statement regarding its potential takeover by PCP Capital Partners, the Reuben Brothers and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia (PIF).
“The club’s assertion that the Premier League has rejected the takeover is incorrect.
“The Premier League Board has, on a number of occasions, given its opinion about which entities it believes would have control over the club should the consortium proceed with the acquisition. That opinion is based on legal advice.
“This means the potential takeover could proceed to the next stage should the relevant entities provide all appropriate information. They would then be subject to a suitability assessment by the Board. As an alternative, the Board has repeatedly offered independent arbitration as a way forward since June.
“It is also incorrect to suggest these decisions were taken by any individual; they were agreed unanimously by all Premier League Board members.”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/sep/10/premier-league-hits-back-at-newcastle-claims-takeover
I mean if you object to this, you must object to that.
I`m concerned that those displaying virus symptoms will feel it is OK, entitled even, to leave their house because they are wearing a mask. In this instance, masks are counter-productive, indeed dangerous.
The condition relates to the material used. I only recently learned that the disposable masks that everyone wears are made from single-use plastic. The environmental damage from their disposal - which will linger for centuries - will be appalling. They should be banned worldwide in favour of paper construction or other biodegradable material.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1304094490177744900?s=20
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1304105652705517569?s=20
accordingly ambitious. We aim to have
80 per cent of UK trade covered by
free trade agreements within the next
three years, starting with the USA"
Finally we agree, the manifesto and its authors were stupid.