Westministers: May Shares the Cake

[RedToothBrush]

May's Speech Abbreviated:

We still have nfi how we are going to do this. EU this is your fault. You sort it out. We are too lazy, workshy and fighting like high school children to work it out ourselves. Be our whipping boy.

I support democracy as long as I get to do whatever I like
I support human rights as long as I can ignore them when I like.
I support the rule of law except when it doesn't suit my agenda.

Waffle waffle.

"Creative", "Dynamic" PR for my Premiership.

Waffle waffle

We really need policing cooperation, PLEASE keep it with us. I know I threatened to withdraw this, but I'm sorry, I was wrong and a bit of a dick about this.

Gets to the point FINALLY.

"2 year transition period"

(With another time bomb lock which is still too short for IT departments. Nothing to do with the next general election, honest).

RULE BRITANNIA!

Polite Applause.

From May's sycophantic interviewer:

You must very often feel like knocking heads together, but you manage to appear serene.

Virtually all PMs age in Office, but TM is aging particularly rapidly. She looked very upset indeed about the Bombardier business - I don't know whether she was upset for Northern Ireland or because her mate Trump let her down. I felt probably the latter.

Plus it might well screw things up with her new bezzies the DUP.

I had to give my head a little shake when Arlene said they (US/Boeing) shouldn't expect there not to be 'consequences' in damaging the economy (wrt Bombardier and the US slapping on 200%+ tariffs). So, if the EU (and especially Ireland's) economy are damaged by the Brexit decision, is Arlene happy to expect 'consequences', too? Am imagining all sorts for Arlene's consequences. Perfect comedy in allusions to a trade war with US at this juncture.

I agree that all PMs age - Tony Blair was a good example. But May's accelerated aging and increasing haggardness has been spectacularly fast.

I wish I could say I felt sorry for her - but she had brought it on herself and the country through her irreconcilably incompatible goals and strategy.

We are all going to end up in shit because of her unless you are a disaster capitalist

Dual fault lines in world stability, in that both the US and UK have incompetent and delusional government, with a populace that mostly wants to hear only these delusions

BigChoc I don't think most of the population of the UK want to hear the delusions. Even half the electorate didn't vote leave. Of those that did vote, it wasn't a huge majority. It is just a very strange cabal seems to have appropriated the organs and airways/media of the country. They seem to have impact beyond their numbers. The shock is the amount of weirdness seeing the light of day, on foot of the ref. And that there is an appetite for the delusional thinking at all. Maybe just wishful thinking.

Why talk of "consequences" for Boeing are - being charitable - a complete crock of shit:

www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/28/britain_boeing_bombardier_brouhaha/

Analysis The British government is publicly threatening to stop giving defence contracts to American aerospace firm Boeing – even though this is laughably unrealistic.

Both the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have, over the last couple of days, warned Boeing that it is undermining its relationship with the UK, in financial newswire Reuters’ words.

A trade spat between Boeing and Canada-headquartered Bombardier, whose civil aviation division is building a new airliner that threatens Boeing’s pre-eminent market position, prompted the US company to complain to US trade regulators. They slapped 220 per cent tariffs on Bombardier’s Cseries jets, which are light airliners that directly compete with the latest models of the Boeing 737.

Boeing formally accused Bombardier of receiving unfair state aid from the Canadian government, and of selling the Cseries aircraft to an American airline at below cost price. The American Federal Trade Commission, funnily enough, agreed with the American manufacturer.

The UK comes into this spat because Bombardier employs 4,200 people in Northern Ireland, of which around a thousand directly work on building Cseries wings. Hence why Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, said: “This is not the behaviour we expect of Boeing and could indeed jeopardise our future relationship with Boeing.”

This is nonsense. Britain’s armed forces are heavily dependent upon Boeing products, and therefore ongoing Boeing support for them. These include:

the C-17 Globemaster heavy transport aircraft
the Chinook heavy helicopter
the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter (but see below)
the RC-135 Rivet Joint airborne signals intelligence aircraft
the E-3D Sentry airborne radar platform
the Harpoon anti-ship missile (under what used to be called McDonnell Douglas, until Boeing bought them out)
a signed purchase order for P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft

I'm sure everyone on here knows this already, but just thought it might be worth flagging up what "direct effect" means and apologies if it is all very familiar!

The EU produces two main types of "legislation" under the treaty. One is Regulations which are directly applicable across the EU from a particular date, and Directives which set out a principle of EU law which each country then has to work out their own way of putting into effect and for which there is a certain amount of leeway so long as it is compatible with the overall purpose of the EU law.

Regulations have direct effect - they apply without further legislation. Directives have indirect effect - further legislation is required. This is potentially a big deal.

Thanks artisan, this is very helpful!

Just seen the BBC News Front page summaries ....

I like claims ... which suggests the BBC are aware that it's not been agreed elsewhere.

Regulations have direct effect - they apply without further legislation.
Thanks artisans how does this affect the repel bill, if at all?
Are these forthcoming or just previous regulations? Will it be acknowledgement that this executive is not entitled to final say on EU regs?
Sorry if these are daft questions.

The Lords:

Ministers should not have power to impose taxation by secondary legislation

No taxation without representation !!!!!!!

Matthew Holehouse‏*@mattholehouse*
What DD read out on a podium in Brussels today, UK lawyers described as "inappropriate and unnecessary" in July.

mlexmarketinsight.com/insights-center/editors-picks/brexit/europe/mays-hunger-for-a-brexit-deal-seen-in-citizens-rights-compromise
May's hunger for a Brexit deal seen in citizens' rights compromise

Good piece by Ian Dunt

"This is, in effect, the story of two Brexits. One is the crazed Brexit of a bunch of hysterics. The other is a rational Brexit which seeks a viable outcome via a realistic timetable."

" If the Brexiters have any sense at all, they will see that the reasonable approach is far more likely to provide them with some form of eventual limited Brexit. The alternative will bring the country to the brink of the cliff edge, from which it will either change its mind or be flung off. Neither option would suit them. But to arrive at this realisation they need to accept that the UK is not in the omnipotent position they have fooled themselves into thinking it is. They need to sober up.

The question is this: After so long mainlining emotional nationalism, can they wean themselves off it in time to save what's left of their project? It's not at all clear they can. We'll find out in these next few months, one way or another."

Eu Regulations and UK regulations are different. In the EU regulations are analogous to Acts of Parliament on which both houses have voted and which have royal assent.

U.K. Regulations (always separated into England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and do not always apply to each part of the Union) are subordinate to Acts of parliament and are made by ministers.

The regulations under the great repeal bill are usual uk ones which minimise parliamentary oversight. But by saying there is still some role of the EU institutions which have direct effect, DD is potentially opening the door to some limited ECJ oversight.

Thank you very much artisan good news, hopefully.

Sectarian troubles here and in NI, were a worry after brexit mother sounds bewildering for the families, especially after a generation of peace.

@jameschappers
The PM's wheeze of a two-year session means there is no time to use Parliament Act so Lords has whip hand

Another nail in coffin of Brexit - as I've said consistently, legislation won't get through Lords even if it scrapes through Commons

@jameschappers
Correct. So Govt has just one shot at all legislation needed for Mar 19 exit day. Chance of it clearing Commons and Lords - zeroJames Chapman added,

I know I shouldn't but I had to laugh at the two autocorrects in your post Mother at least I presume they were autocorrects - "devoted" government in NI rather than devolved government.

@jameschappers
The PM's wheeze of a two-year session means there is no time to use Parliament Act so Lords has whip hand

Can someone explain ?

It's something to do with the parliament act. A bill needs to pass three readings in two sessions to get through (without lords buy in I think). Tm extended this session to two years, meaning they can't force this bill through until the next session. Too late for brexit.

Interesting that the BBC has finally just done an item on the news on the supposedly soft border between Norway and Sweden, pointing out that there are customs checks, that it required a lot of investment (for just a tenth of the traffic that goes over the channel) and involved a great deal of goodwill and collaboration between Norway and Sweden.

Frictionless borders - learning from Norway
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41413291

The conclusion from the Customs guy there that they interviewed...... "Do a deal"

I find it telling that it's men rather than women with the attitude that it will be just fine.

So, so true. Have a very good recent example but it's too outing to post. In general, men talk about goods and trade agreements ("they need us more than them" - got this recently) and women worry about the impact on people. Huge generalisation, I know.