Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brussels ups the the ante over the Johnson/Cummings EU deal ov

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 10 in General
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brussels ups the the ante over the Johnson/Cummings EU deal override move

The stakes go up. Commission VP Maroš Šef?ovi? has issued an ultimatum to the UK Govt to scrap the Withdrawal Agreement override by the end of this month. If it doesn't, he suggests the trade deal negotiation will end and the EU will sue.https://t.co/C2dWUKEb33

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 491
    First.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612
    Second (loser) as Boris always ends up being.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 491
    First... for the second time. It looks as though there is a problem here
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Jesus Christ. And we know he won't.

    It's going to be No Deal.

    Fucking mad.
    All is good don't worry. We will get a deal.

    But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
    I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
    I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
    If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.

    Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.

    Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
    What do you make of the politics of this @Philip_Thompson? I would have imagined that if the provisions of a treaty are found retrospectively to be impossible to abide by, the best thing would be to keep schtum and just break them when you have to, and claim it's just your interpretation. Advertising it upfront is a completely different thing. Is it a strong arm negotiating tactic?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,643
    Thirty-first ... because it seems no one knows how to count anyway, so what the hell.
  • I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636
    The Brexit dream is dieing......
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    Nigelb said:

    Who remembers the time when Home Information Packs and VAT on pasties seemed like the very worst things a government could do?

    In the absence of @ydoethur , I suppose it must fall to me to point out that everything seems to have gone tits up since VAT on pasties...
    You might say that things have completely cup-sized...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,682
    Hmmm. Seems the EU will give Cummings what he wants: Europe walks away and they get the blame in the tabloid press.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927
    edited September 10
    The Mooch certainly has a turn of phrase..
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/09/trump-bob-woodward-book-411225
    ...“Trump loves brands, and Woodward has been the gold standard for 50 years of investigative journalism around the presidency, so it's the same reason why he likes the Gray Lady, he likes The New York Times. It's the paper of record traditionally in his hometown, so even though both excoriate him, he's attracted to them the way a low-IQ small moth would be to a flame,” said Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as White House communications director under Trump. “Trump is always convinced that if he talks to the person, he is going to elucidate and enlighten that person and get them to like him.”...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    Good. Some leadership.

    Still not enough. Needs leading lights in the ERG (MPs) to come out against it.

    Steve Baker would help.
  • Anyhoo, the internal market bill needs to be rejected for one other reason, it is the greatest power grab by the executive in centuries, probably not seen since the monarchs ruled us.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,682

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    Why would Johnson care? He'll be out of office, either voluntary (Ed of Telegraph) or involuntarily in a few years time. He has never cared one way or the other about the EU. Brexit was just a vehicle for him.

    Cummings is a different matter.
  • FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Jesus Christ. And we know he won't.

    It's going to be No Deal.

    Fucking mad.
    All is good don't worry. We will get a deal.

    But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
    I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
    I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
    If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.

    Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.

    Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
    What do you make of the politics of this @Philip_Thompson? I would have imagined that if the provisions of a treaty are found retrospectively to be impossible to abide by, the best thing would be to keep schtum and just break them when you have to, and claim it's just your interpretation. Advertising it upfront is a completely different thing. Is it a strong arm negotiating tactic?
    Its a good question. I don't think its possible to keep shtum since without the notwithstanding clause the courts would enforce the treaty over this. There is no denying the nature of that notwithstanding clause so in one way its a case of go big or go home.

    This isn't where I expected the talks to end up though I must admit. This has given the EU every excuse to end the talks and blame us, I thought the government would if there's a failure in the talks be looking to play the blame game more rather than take on the blame like this.

    But ultimately the EU has been playing hardball and IMO has been going back on its word. Now the UK is showing it is playing hardball too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    He's not that clever a strategist.

    He bullshits as he goes along. Maybe if his bullshit is called he'll fold and bullshit that he never did.

    But, Cummings has his balls in a vice so I'm not betting on it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363
    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm starting to wonder if Corb...

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    I suspect it's going to be so bad we will go back under whatever terms the EU offer - eventually the olden days when the EU were in charge of things so the only stupid ideas we saw where Home Information Packs and VAT on sausages rolls now seem like a great idea.
  • I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    Why would Johnson care? He'll be out of office, either voluntary (Ed of Telegraph) or involuntarily in a few years time. He has never cared one way or the other about the EU. Brexit was just a vehicle for him.

    Cummings is a different matter.
    Legacies.

    I spoke to someone who said the reason why Boris Johnson will deny another Indyref on his watch, so he won't be the PM that lost the Union.

    He doesn't care that doing that makes a Yes victory inevitable, so long as another PM loses the Union.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927
    The shy No-Trumpers... ?
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-trump-might-be-scaring-off-older-voters/
    “Most of the activities you normally have here in adult Disney World are closed down,” Bryan Casey told me recently by phone from The Villages, Florida, one of the country’s largest retirement communities. COVID-19 has dulled the normally vibrant social lives of Villages residents, who typically spend their days on eternal summer vacation. The town squares that anchor the sprawling development, usually filled with drinking and dancing and music, have been shut down. “Open The Squares? Look At What Is Happening At The Colleges,” read the headline on a recent letter to the editor at Villages News.

    In Sumter County, where The Villages is situated, Donald Trump won 68.3 percent of the vote in 2016, and no other county in Florida had a higher turnout. But, Casey — the communications director of the Villages Democratic Club — said, “I have a couple of friends I know who voted for Trump in 2016 who say that they won’t do that this time.” But few would be willing to admit that publicly. “You’ve got to live here to understand that,” he said...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    So does mean May and Gale and Neil are now the leading rebels while Raab and Boris and Rees Mogg lead the government in a reversal of last year?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,682
    How long before the City starts nudging some of their friendly MP mates over this lunacy? Don't they want financial equivalence type stuff from EU?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200
    Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,682

    Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
    Pelosi has the power to deliver on the threat. The Dems hold the House. No trade deal without it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    Why would Johnson care? He'll be out of office, either voluntary (Ed of Telegraph) or involuntarily in a few years time. He has never cared one way or the other about the EU. Brexit was just a vehicle for him.

    Cummings is a different matter.
    Yes, Brexit was just a strategem for him in his game of personal advancement. Hence the two letters.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
    Pelosi has the power to deliver on the threat. The Dems hold the House. No trade deal without it.
    If Biden wins we are going to be looking for new allies anyway.
  • Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
    Pelosi has the power to deliver on the threat. The Dems hold the House. No trade deal without it.
    There was never likely to be one anyway.

    At least we can stop hearing about chlorinated chicken now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    edited September 10

    Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
    Pelosi has the power to deliver on the threat. The Dems hold the House. No trade deal without it.
    Not impossible the GOP regain the House if Trump is re elected, the Dems had a big vote lead in 2018 there but not huge on seats and for the Dems to take the Senate will take a lot of seat gains
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 37,682
    Irish Americans ≈ 32 million.

    They vote.

    Did Cumming's little tabletop wargame predict the US reaction?
  • This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,355
    edited September 10
    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • 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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921
    Lamont on R4 - “Government is in a terrible hole, very hard to justify”
  • Sterling now almost free-falling w.r.t.EUR. What next? Ratings downgrade? Boris has opened Pandora's box, and she's not happy about it.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    Nobody can travel to Europe anyway....
  • This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    I've always thought it was likely from the moment we voted to leave. It's actually taking longer than I expected but if this Bill nonsense doesn't end we'll certainly be there by Christmas.
  • This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    Why would it?

    Any way the talks ended without a deal would see this happen.

    Our exporters could be more competitive even with tariffs then.
  • FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.

    Yep - he has totally misunderstood the point that the Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge is making.

  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    Why would Johnson care? He'll be out of office, either voluntary (Ed of Telegraph) or involuntarily in a few years time. He has never cared one way or the other about the EU. Brexit was just a vehicle for him.

    Cummings is a different matter.
    Legacies.

    I spoke to someone who said the reason why Boris Johnson will deny another Indyref on his watch, so he won't be the PM that lost the Union.

    He doesn't care that doing that makes a Yes victory inevitable, so long as another PM loses the Union.
    Given that the book on English history 2015 onwards will begin "From the moment Boris decided that his career was best served by support Brexit Scotland's departure was inevitable" I suspect it will make zero difference.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    Nobody can travel to Europe anyway....
    LOL
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,927

    Anyhoo, the internal market bill needs to be rejected for one other reason, it is the greatest power grab by the executive in centuries, probably not seen since the monarchs ruled us.

    How can that be true when libertarian @Philip_Thompson approves of it ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,090

    Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
    Pelosi has the power to deliver on the threat. The Dems hold the House. No trade deal without it.
    If Biden wins we are going to be looking for new allies anyway.
    Russia and Serbia?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    It's going to go well into next year before the EU gets any legal remedy on this breach. I suspect they might be leisurely. No rush ....

    Keir Starmer will have to come out against this move, otherwise he will be associated with it. The "thinking" from the Cummings cabal seems to be to flush Labour on this, so Starmer will have to play it carefully. I think he's capable of that. He could use a "Stop playing games and get Brexit done" line. Always nice to throw a slogan back at someone.

    Suella Baverman's legal position is indeed risible (FPT). She misleads on the points of law.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    ***Betting post***

    If you think Boris will fall hard & fast (unlikely, but not impossible) you can get 15.5 on him going this year on Betfair.
  • FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    Why would it?

    Any way the talks ended without a deal would see this happen.

    Our exporters could be more competitive even with tariffs then.
    It won't be tariffs that stop our goods being sold in the EU, just a lack of valid paperwork rendering our goods unsellable...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    Why would Johnson care? He'll be out of office, either voluntary (Ed of Telegraph) or involuntarily in a few years time. He has never cared one way or the other about the EU. Brexit was just a vehicle for him.

    Cummings is a different matter.
    Legacies.

    I spoke to someone who said the reason why Boris Johnson will deny another Indyref on his watch, so he won't be the PM that lost the Union.

    He doesn't care that doing that makes a Yes victory inevitable, so long as another PM loses the Union.
    As I said wrt May and hence her deal. He might not want to be the PM that lost the Union, he definitely doesn't want to be the PM that brings back The Troubles.
  • Portugal back on the quarantine list....the ever changing list really doesn't help anybody.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,371

    This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    When will we get to 85 US cents to to the pound as someone on here predicted at 04:00 on 24 June 2016?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    ***Betting post***

    If you think Boris will fall hard & fast (unlikely, but not impossible) you can get 15.5 on him going this year on Betfair.

    I am on and have been for a while. Up to Sep next year at all prices.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    How long before the City starts nudging some of their friendly MP mates over this lunacy? Don't they want financial equivalence type stuff from EU?

    I suspect they are starting to look at Geneva real estate with a resigned shrug.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,656
    UK cases, by specimen date, scaled to 100k population

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,656
    UK cases, by specimen date

    image
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580

    FPT

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Jesus Christ. And we know he won't.

    It's going to be No Deal.

    Fucking mad.
    All is good don't worry. We will get a deal.

    But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
    I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
    I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
    If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.

    Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.

    Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
    What do you make of the politics of this @Philip_Thompson? I would have imagined that if the provisions of a treaty are found retrospectively to be impossible to abide by, the best thing would be to keep schtum and just break them when you have to, and claim it's just your interpretation. Advertising it upfront is a completely different thing. Is it a strong arm negotiating tactic?
    Its a good question. I don't think its possible to keep shtum since without the notwithstanding clause the courts would enforce the treaty over this. There is no denying the nature of that notwithstanding clause so in one way its a case of go big or go home.

    This isn't where I expected the talks to end up though I must admit. This has given the EU every excuse to end the talks and blame us, I thought the government would if there's a failure in the talks be looking to play the blame game more rather than take on the blame like this.

    But ultimately the EU has been playing hardball and IMO has been going back on its word. Now the UK is showing it is playing hardball too.
    They would try to enforce it eventually - but legal processes are always delayed, and legislation could be employed then.

    I suppose my take is this: The UK Government has not minded telling the EU to eff-off with its ridiculous demands, because all things considered, No trade deal is not a terrible position for the UK, and is indeed 'worse for the EU'. However, the EU has found a way to squeeze hard on the NI issue, and make some hard threats on what they would do in the event of No trade deal. The UK Government have therefore had to neutralise this threat to reach equilibrium again.

    Read like that, it's not entirely a cause for pessimism. It shows that the EU are clearly negotiating very aggressively for a trade deal, the UK Government is less committed either way.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,090
    edited September 10

    I'm exchanging messages with a former SPAD, their theory why Boris Johnson is doing this.

    He knows Brexit is going to be a disaster he wants to poison the well so much that the EU will never want us back.

    Why would Johnson care? He'll be out of office, either voluntary (Ed of Telegraph) or involuntarily in a few years time. He has never cared one way or the other about the EU. Brexit was just a vehicle for him.

    Cummings is a different matter.
    Legacies.

    I spoke to someone who said the reason why Boris Johnson will deny another Indyref on his watch, so he won't be the PM that lost the Union.

    He doesn't care that doing that makes a Yes victory inevitable, so long as another PM loses the Union.
    It would be poetic justice if he gives the honours to Michael Gove.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,656
    UK Case Summaries

    image
    image
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363
    FF43 said:

    It's going to go well into next year before the EU gets any legal remedy on this breach. I suspect they might be leisurely. No rush ....

    Keir Starmer will have to come out against this move, otherwise he will be associated with it. The "thinking" from the Cummings cabal seems to be to flush Labour on this, so Starmer will have to play it carefully. I think he's capable of that. He could use a "Stop playing games and get Brexit done" line. Always nice to throw a slogan back at someone.

    Suella Baverman's legal position is indeed risible (FPT). She misleads on the points of law.

    Yes if the Cons had wanted someone who would be fly-by-night, seat-of-the-pants, all heart over head as leader of the opposition they have slightly miscalculated.
  • Portugal back on the quarantine list....the ever changing list really doesn't help anybody.

    I've reconciled myself to not travelling abroad for the foreseeable future.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,921

    This is what the Brexiteers have done to Sterling.



    Parity with the Euro would be embarrassing?
    Nobody can travel to Europe anyway....
    I wasn’t the only Brit on the Eurotunnel on Monday, by any means.

    Bozo trashed the currency last autumn when I was in the US. I seem to be jinxed as far as Sterling strength is concerned.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,656
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm starting to wonder if Corb...

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,656
    UK Deaths - 28 day cut off

    image
    image
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580
    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.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited September 10
    IanB2 said:

    Lamont on R4 - “Government is in a terrible hole, very hard to justify”

    So that's now Lamont, Major, May, Howard, Gale, Garnier, and various multiple other governmental lawyers and civil servants gathering.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,636

    Scott_xP said:
    yeh and Obama said we would be at the back of the queue.

    Yadda Yadda
    Pelosi has the power to deliver on the threat. The Dems hold the House. No trade deal without it.
    If Biden wins we are going to be looking for new allies anyway.
    If Sanders was heading to the WH I might agree, but Biden is pretty much a default US president.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,355

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • Portugal back on the quarantine list....the ever changing list really doesn't help anybody.

    I've reconciled myself to not travelling abroad for the foreseeable future.
    The government really just need to make a decision for things like Christmas to popular places like Middle East or ski resorts. Do we really want people going away or not? If so, are we going to test them on their return.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    You really are struggling to come up with an actual argument aren't you....

    So 3 countries said something and then did something else. What did the EU actually do?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
    I don't think the point is about obligations on parliament. The (deliberately) irrelevant claim that Braverman makes is that no-one has remedy for any presumed breach under domestic law unless domestic law provides the remedy.

    It's sort of like saying because Little Piddleton Parish Council hasn't enacted a version of the Homicide Act you can kill people at will in Little Piddleton
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,031
    edited September 10

    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.
    That's the legacy of Britain being a laboratory for ultra-free market experiments from as far back as 1979. Only Chile was in the vanguard so early on.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506
    edited September 10

    Portugal back on the quarantine list....the ever changing list really doesn't help anybody.

    I've reconciled myself to not travelling abroad for the foreseeable future.
    Yes no overseas travel for a while so we have all those fun trips to Blackpool and Skegness and Southend to look forward to while from January when the tariffs likely come in on EU imports we can have all that traditional wonderful British food and English wine
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm starting to wonder if Corb...

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 35,090

    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.
    Presumably you can name several 'lost' billion dollar tech companies that we would otherwise have had in the UK?
  • I think we may be heading for (another) crisis. The ultimate outcome is likely to be TM style deal or softer. Boris & Cummings will be ousted.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,200

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 79,506

    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
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,624
    Scott_xP said:
    Regretfully, if a government is willing to illegally shut down parliament and flout international law it will be perfectly happy with a dishonest Attorney General.

    Suella Braverman is a feature not a bug of this corrupt regime.
  • I think we may be heading for (another) crisis. The ultimate outcome is likely to be TM style deal or softer. Boris & Cummings will be ousted.

    Who by? In any Tory leadership election the winner will be the one promising the most outlandish anti EU deal.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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..
  • HYUFD said:

    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.
  • FF43 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Regretfully, if a government is willing to illegally shut down parliament and flout international law it will be perfectly happy with a dishonest Attorney General.

    Suella Braverman is a feature not a bug of this corrupt regime.
    She's worse than Bill Barr, and that's some achievement.
  • 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...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 12,580

    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.
    That's the legacy of Britain being a laboratory for ultra-free market thinking from 1979. Only Chile was in the vanguard so early on.
    I don't think I agree - short termism in Britain has much deeper roots. I studied (not very diligently I have to admit) 19th and 20th century economics at uni, and I know that (for example) post WW1, instead of modernising our by then very old factory stock, there was an orgy of speculation based on the anticipated profits of Germany being blocked from the export market. We want to cash out quickly.

    Our Government could do a lot more reward longer term investment using the tax system I think. To say nothing of the honours system.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612
    HYUFD said:

    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
    It's a shame that the Democrats are likely to be in a position to block any trade deal then isn't it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 25,363

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,157
    It's the time of the week when I've been reading the runes on the Arcgis ONS COVID map, but given the national Joy of Six social lockdown, I wonder whether local lockdowns and areas of concern will take a back seat.

    Basically we now have 3 zones in England on ONS:

    High infection: a crescent from the Wirral through Leeds and Ripon up along the NE coast to Blyth and covering the lockdown zones, plus an area around Birmingham. The question for government is which they do they now swing with local social lockdowns under and below the 6 person rule - do they pull these back to the worst hotspots like Bolton and Bradford or do they apply something more widely across the north.
    Mid infection: most of the rest of England from Sheffield and Stoke downwards.
    Lower infection: Beyond Exeter; an area bounded by M62, A1 and A14; national park areas of N. England

    Arcgis seems to be lining back up with the ZOE symptom tracker as well as rates rise (ZOE tended to find some funny outliers at lower infection levels due to MOE)
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    I think we may be heading for (another) crisis. The ultimate outcome is likely to be TM style deal or softer. Boris & Cummings will be ousted.

    How?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 38,318
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm starting to wonder if Corb...

    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.
  • So when is Turkey joining the EU?
  • eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 9,295
    I wonder if any enterprising journalist has thought to ask Tony Abbott if he is happy fronting for a corrupt regime that flouts International Law?
  • eekeek Posts: 9,612

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm starting to wonder if Corb...

    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.
    Which is what I don't get - we seem to want State Aid to support businesses that fundamentally don't need aid..
This discussion has been closed.