Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: Governing by U-Turn

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 07/09/2020 01:45

Johnson's determination to get brexit done and to have 'a clean break from Europe' on terms which involve other countries happily returning fishing rights they bought from us (without recompense for the said previous purchase) in addition to the EU accepting terms they don't feel create a level playingfield and risk their economic future make any deal impossible. Our demands simply aren't achievable.

The alternative is adherence to the Withdrawal Agreement in which we are unable to bail out businesses via state aid and to have no deal which creates huge trade barriers and tarriffs overnight and massive customs red tape which we simply are not yet prepared for because the systems for running this are running behind schedule. This would lead to massive food shortages and Brexit lorry parks throughout the country for the forseeable future.

Johnson's latest bright idea is that he seems to think he can avoid chaos by a strategy which would cause even more chaos by deliberately reneging on the withdrawal agreement which is an international agreement just months after throwing a hissy fit for China doing exactly the same thing. This wouldn't just be hypocritical but would make a mockery of our credibility internationally and potentially endanger every other international agreement we've currently in place because well, why should anyone else stick to an agreement with the UK.

We could face years of legal wrangles with god knows which countries and businesses suing the British government.

But y'know Johnson thinks this is a sensible strategy and a cracking plan to force Brussels to blink first rather than actually take the subject seriously and do something in the country's interest rather than prevent Johnson from damaging his internal reputation with leave voters and because he thinks this is the correct hill to die on to prove he doesn't govern by u-turn. Johnson's ego seems more important to him than feeding the nation and having an international reputation.

Or he could do another u-turn.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
ListeningQuietly · 08/09/2020 16:27

In a very specific and limited way
I shall go for an Eye test in Barnard Castle

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 16:29

My thoughts exactly - bellini - once Dominic Cummings had chosen to break the law, I began to wonder why exactly I had been so law abiding in the past. I will now use my own judgement as to which laws are worth obeying.

BigChocFrenzy · 08/09/2020 16:33

I don't think it's a conspiracy

imo, the E-stream of political toddlers blundered into power, but are totally incapable of running the country, or indeed a bath.

So all they can do is tantrum and smash everything, to make the growups - in the Uk and EU - give them cake

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 16:36

@Peregrina

My thoughts exactly - bellini - once Dominic Cummings had chosen to break the law, I began to wonder why exactly I had been so law abiding in the past. I will now use my own judgement as to which laws are worth obeying.
As long as you do it in a "specific and limited way" that is.

Probably better I don't serve on any juries in future. Quite aside from my forbidden knowledge of jury nullification ....

MashedPotatoBrainz · 08/09/2020 16:39

I've just seen that the ERG only voted for Johnson's withdrawal agreement because he swore to them that if he didn't get the trade deal he'd get rid of it before it came into force. 😮

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 16:43

One Tory MP - Sir Bob Neill - has tweeted his clear disapproval. Although it's telling that most of the replies to his tweet are "Yeah, mate. believe it when we see it ..."

twitter.com/neill_bob/status/1303321011258089473

Of course it could be that the government is acknowledging - over 200 years later - that Thomas Jefferson was right, and that there is a moral imperative in breaking a bad law ?

BLM and XR protesters take note.

Westminstenders: Governing by U-Turn
DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 16:44

@MashedPotatoBrainz

I've just seen that the ERG only voted for Johnson's withdrawal agreement because he swore to them that if he didn't get the trade deal he'd get rid of it before it came into force. 😮
and ?

He's sworn lots of things to lots of people - and not all of them are happy.

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 16:52

I imagine that they really did think that an international treaty could just be amended if they felt like it.

BLM and XR protesters take note.

There have always been people who believe that a law is wrong and are prepared to break it, but it's done so in the acceptance that they take the punishment meted out. My late DF was a conscientious objector during the last war - he was quite prepared to go to prison for his beliefs although he got an unconditional discharge in the end.

More recently, there were people objecting to the poll tax who were prepared to take the consequences, or protesters against cruise missiles.

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 16:55

I have a vague memory that there is a defence in common law around preventing a crime - some protesters managed to trash some million pound jets that were going to be used to bomb civilians and got away with it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_Ploughshares seems to be it. Notice they were acquitted (shades of Clive Ponting)

Maybe the 48% need to step up ?

OchonAgusOchonO · 08/09/2020 17:02

There have always been people who believe that a law is wrong and are prepared to break it, but it's done so in the acceptance that they take the punishment meted out.

Not too many who wrote the law, then decided they didn't like it, and decided to break it.

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 17:04

I've just seen that the ERG only voted for Johnson's withdrawal agreement because he swore to them that if he didn't get the trade deal he'd get rid of it before it came into force.

Well, more fool them - it's not as though Johnson was noted for being a man of his word. However, I am pretty sure that they will be perfectly happy to break an international treaty. They won't be quite so happy if the US blocks the trade deal that they are desperate for.

ListeningQuietly · 08/09/2020 17:08

The level heads in the US trade team will be sitting on their hands with regard to the UK.
Why would they waste energy writing paragraphs that will be ignored

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 17:09

Not too many who wrote the law, then decided they didn't like it, and decided to break it.

Agreed. I was thinking of ordinary folks when I wrote that. Of course, Johnson boxed himself in - with his majority he could have said to the EU - hang on a minute, we are a new Government we would like to examine the agreement. But he didn't, he was intent on getting Brexit done with his oven ready deal.

Realistically though, what is the sanction if they do break an international law?

I can envisage China stepping up its repression in Hong Kong and saying tough luck, you don't believe in international law.

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 17:14

Realistically though, what is the sanction if they do break an international law?

Sanctions for a start. Also I'm struggling to imagine a compliance department that is going to green light any deals with companies in the UK if they feel they can't trust them.

ListeningQuietly · 08/09/2020 17:16

Realistically though, what is the sanction if they do break an international law?

More to the point, for a country about to embark on lots of trade deals
NOBODY WILL TRUST the UK

Sostenueto · 08/09/2020 17:22

Just seen an interview with Kier Starmer. He certainly wants everything laid at BJs feet!
There's no way labour party going to interfere with anything. They are just sitting back waiting for the shit to fly.

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 17:24

If I weren't job hunting, I'd hate to big myself up. But following yesterdays prediction ...

(This was the first tweet that popped up when I noticed "Treaty of Utrecht" trending ...)

Westminstenders: Governing by U-Turn
bellinisurge · 08/09/2020 17:26

They could have, at least, said some bullshit about how they were satisfied they remained in compliance with the law. Rather than actually saying in Parliament, recorded on Hansard, that they accept they are breaking the law.
We are not talking the apocryphal law about shooting a Welshman in Oswestry with a bow and arrow. This is their new law. That they all literally signed up to before the last election which got them an 80 seat majority just over a year ago.
For. Fuck's. Sake.

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 17:30

No bellini, this is not May's deal. This is the law that Johnson negotiated and they signed up to after they got their 80 seat majority.

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 17:31

They could have, at least, said some bullshit about how they were satisfied they remained in compliance with the law. Rather than actually saying in Parliament, recorded on Hansard, that they accept they are breaking the law.

This isn't hypothetical anymore.

I wonder what her madge feels about having her signature on the WA ?

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 17:33

I expect the NI Minister will get the chop for letting the cat out of the bag!

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 17:36

@Peregrina

I expect the NI Minister will get the chop for letting the cat out of the bag!
Well who is going to talk to him internationally anyway ? Especially if they don't need to.
OchonAgusOchonO · 08/09/2020 17:50

Of course, Johnson boxed himself in - with his majority he could have said to the EU - hang on a minute, we are a new Government we would like to examine the agreement. But he didn't, he was intent on getting Brexit done with his oven ready deal.

Except they did and the section on NI was altered, to their presumed satisfaction, by replacing the backstop with a commitment that Northern Ireland will retain substantial regulatory alignment with the EU after Brexit. Perhaps he should have actually read what he was signing.

DGRossetti · 08/09/2020 17:57

The optics of a national government deciding unilaterally to abandon a Treaty that it negotiated itself couldn't be worse for the UK. They haven't even the fig leaf of saying "well it was the last lot that signed that, we're fucked if we are going to abide by it" (not that it would make a jot of difference).

Having to sabotage a deal that you personally negotiated must surely be a plot line in a comedic series pilot that never went to air as being "too far fetched to be funny" ?

(Although the storyline about Jim Hacker having to lose a petition he organised in opposition when it was delivered to him in government comes close ?)

Peregrina · 08/09/2020 18:00

Yes, they should have read what they signed. They can't really blame May, or Remainers, or Corbyn. This is a Johnson fuck up.

Raphael Behr has a good piece in the Guardian. I particularly like this gem:

A man such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, for example, does not wish to be seen as a common nationalist, but something more high-minded: a sovereigntist. He likes the votes that Farage’s methods bring in, but he wants them delivered to the tradesman’s entrance.