Westminstenders: Run Forrest Run

[RedToothBrush]

Need i say more?

Louise Why should that regulation require European law? Peregrina. It doesn't, it just doesn't.
I’m tired of arguments like this. Not evidence-based or reasoned.

So why are EU working directives often thought a good idea? Because...for some reason I feel that this government cares little about ordinary people.

Some Pro EU folks seem to believe that we must continue a situation where our labour laws (for example) say exactly what theirs do otherwise everything goes to pot. I disagree with those people, I think our labour laws should say what our Parliament agrees they should say, they might still be the same, they might not.

I have a faint suspicion our esteemed govt might make labour laws which favour bosses over employees. Call me crazy... I don’t know why.

I’m with Misti, we’re being trolled or botted or whatever. Tired of it.

@FrankieStein402

>Already provided several thanks Frankenstein not on this thread - I was asking for an example statement that the BBC could make which you would agree was 'talking positively' - you haven't done that because you can't.

From earlier in the thread I mentioned these but I've put these into the form of positive statements

1. "The UK Supreme Court has decided Case X in favour of Party Y. The case has been finally decided in Britain. Now the UK has left the EU, the litigants in the case will have no recourse to the European Court of Justice.

2. Now the UK has left the EU our trade negotiators have been able to conclude a wide ranging trade agreement with the USA. This is expected to increase the value of trade between the 2 countries by $Xbn over the next X years.

3. Now the UK has left the EU our new trading arrangements have seen the volume of trade with Africa and the USA increase. Britons are celebrating having a little more money in their pockets every week as cheaper goods from across the globe enter the UK market without damaging tariffs.

Sigh. It only takes a leeeeeetle bit of reading around on these topics to know that in context of the shitshow about to be unleashed, all of those 'positive' statements will have come at a price in no way making up for whatever can be described positively.

Gah, it's too late - I meant we will have paid a high price in the context those positives can apply and that they won't in any way compensate for that price.

Cheaper goods. So, that's our domestic agriculture industry gone then?

"Now the UK has left the EU our trade negotiators have been able to conclude a wide ranging trade agreement with the USA"

This FTA remains in doubt.
Regardless of who is POTUS, the USA will drive a very hard bargain with some harsh conditions for the UK ... for not that much benefit, so the UK may not sign

It will not come near to offsetting the loss of the Single Market to UK business

FT: US trade deal to boost UK economy by 0.16% over 15 years

www.ft.com/content/3aef20b0-5c8f-11ea-8033-fa40a0d65a98

Government says future pact will fail to offset loss in trade from leaving EU

I am not a lawyer, but I doubt whether the ECJ would interfere in a legal case which was wholly domestic law. I think you have been fed some Brexiter clap trap there Louise.

As for these wonderful trade deals that we can do with the USA instead of France or Germany, Netherlands, Spain - why are they so much better? It is expected to increase the value of trade by $X but set that against the loss of trade with EU nations to the tune of $X *10 and I wonder just why its such a bargain. Not that we don't trade with the USA anyway.

This country hasn't been able to feed itself for more than 100 years and a significant amount comes via e.g. Spain now. I can't for the life of me seeing us airfreighting lettuces and tomatoes across from the USA because we just have to have a deal with the USA. As for NZ lamb, which we still get - it comes frozen, but some of us prefer fresh meat. And needless to say the Rees-Mogg's and Boris Johnson's of the world will make sure that they still get farm fresh meat.

"Now the UK has left the EU, the litigants in the case will have no recourse to the European Court of Justice."

If an appeal is on human rights grounds, then the litigants would still go to the European Court of Human Rights

The UK has not left the European Human Rights Convention, of which it was one of the instifators after WW2 - and which is nothing to do with the EU or ECJ

"Britons are celebrating having a little more money in their pockets every week"

Is that from a Tory press release ?
Brexit happened on 1 February, so very little time before COVID started hitting prices and wages

New Zealand FTA

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deal-new-zealand-economy-jacinda-ardern-a9571421.html

The government's planned post-Brexitt* trade deal with New Zealand will have a negligible effect on the British economy and could actually make it shrink slightly and leave people worse off, according to government forecasts.

An official strategic outline of the government's plans for the deal unveiled on Wednesday says the effect on GDP (gross domestic product) from the deal will be "close to zero" according to government modelling.

But under one modelled scenario of a more ambitious trade deal, government statisticians think it is possible the UK economy could contract by -0.01 per cent.
They also expect the overall welfare of the UK of the population to be slightly lower as a result of the deal.

Remember Roland Rudd? Cosy world.

The UK has not left the European Human Rights Convention, of which it was one of the instifators after WW2 -

But the Rabid Right of the Tory party are desperate to do so. Which to me is a cause of profound sadness - the UK took a lead in setting it up after seeing the horrors that the Nazis had inflicted, and wanted never to repeat this. I would dearly love to make Priti Patel for one, sit through Richard Dimbleby's recording about the liberation of Belsen. Even now 75 years later I can't find the words to describe how upsetting it is, and how a civilised, educated country could sink to such barbarism.

Well, I used to wonder, but the way my country is going, I begin to know - it only needs a small number, and for the vast majority to say 'whatever'.

Here’s some good news for Louise

Cabinet Office @cabinetofficeuk

We are committed to growing the customs sector for EU trade in 2021.

^Find out more about how the government is preparing for our departure from the UK’s transition period 👉 bit.ly/3fnOaeJ^

#LetsGetGoing

Not sure why developing a whole industry around self-inflicted trade barriers is something to celebrate, but apparently it’s a Brexit Bonus!

it’s a Brexit Bonus!

It's a Brexit bonus if you have customs/shipping experience ;)

Election Maps UK @ElectionMapsUk

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 40% (-2)
LAB: 40% (+1)
LDM: 6% (+1)

Via @OpiniumResearch 27-28 Aug. Changes w/ 13-14 Aug.

"Britons are celebrating having a little more money in their pockets every week"

Which Britons?

Some people (who are pals or relations of Cummings, Johnson or Hancock) have done very nicely out of the past 6 months. The directors of one of those fake medical supply companies that got government contracts without a tender process have done quite well for themselves

I usually just lurk here but I felt compelled to comment on the role of the ECJ.

Cases are referred to the ECJ for a ruling on EU law and treaties only. They do not have jurisdiction beyond that and will not apply the law to the facts. The ECJ generally clarify the meaning of EU law and following that a case will go back to the Supreme Court for its ruling.

Given the way that this country is going, I cannot see the advantage of removing a court of appeal, especially one with jurisdiction that primarily extends to consumer, employment and environmental issues.

And haven't we actually signed up (in the Boris Johnson withdrawal agreement) to a continuing role for the ECJ ref. matters relating to Northern Ireland, and the lovely new customs border we now have within our country? I may actually be wrong about that though, it's just ringing bells.

Agree completely Redavocado. This is a morally repugnant government.

Another lurker here who was compelled to delurk to clarify the function of the ECJ but Redavocado has got there first.

To be absolutely clear, Louise, it doesn’t act as a court of appeal in ordinary cases between individuals or companies (unlike the European Court of Human Rights). The UK courts simply have the ability to “make a reference” to the ECJ to ask for a ruling on the meaning of EC law and then the case comes back to the UK court for it to decide the outcome on the facts. This is entirely sensible - to have a central court to decide EC law rather than have each country interpret the provisions differently.

Each member state gets to nominate a judge and the UK had a judge before Brexit

(It does also have jurisdiction over member states who ignore their treaty obligations which is why the government hate it but if you belong to a club the rules need to be enforced - see also the WTO court*)

*The whole sovereignty argument is fallacious - we had a say in EU laws and will now be forced to be a rule-taker in any future FTA with the EU or USA (yes in theory we can negotiate but they are much more powerful blocks). We have lost huge power and influence via Brexit. I wonder which foreign country which the Tories have not investigated for election interference might find that a win?

And of course, any FTA we do sign with countries/regions that already have a FTA with the EU which might have better terms for certain products or be more beneficial for the UK (personally I fail to see it happening as the UK is so much smaller than the EU ) will then trigger the MFN clause in those FTAs

So any "benefit" that the UK gets, the EU will get under the MFN clause

There are no good points to Brexit. It started as a mess and will continue to be a mess. You can bet your bottom penny that the Government would be shouting the advantages to the skies, if there were any.

I am marking the 16th September in my diary and getting the popcorn out. Johnson will be answering the Commons Liaison Committee on that day whilst Williamson will be lined up in front of Educational Select Committee.

Not not get the popcorn out until after they have been to the Commons Liaison Committee and the Education Select Committee - they could just do a Dom and refuse to attend. It wouldn't look good, but that doesn't bother them.

So Louise is that the best you could do?

You complained the BBC was not talking positively about brexit and provided a set of "they could talk positively about..." statements.

I asked for an example statement that you would accept from the BBC as them talking positively.

You gave three statements based in a rose tinted future - obviously the BBC cannot make those statements because they have not happened -

As I said, you cannot give an example statement that the BBC can make today that would meet your criteria of them talking positively - so please stop denigrating them unfairly.

This is the BBC being even handed by the way - listen and weep
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lyzj

I second listening to the link Frankie provided. It's an excellent programme. But yes, listen and weep.
What can any of us do at this juncture to limit the damage that's coming?