Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
IHeartSusanDey · 10/09/2020 16:39

All we need is 50% plus one as set out in the GFA. There is quite a majority for reunification in the South and by all indications, we would achieve it in the North. I give it five years. Ten at the absolute maximum.

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 16:41

@prettybird

So the government's "legal" word deliberately in quotes Wink argument is that parliamentary sovereignty trumps international treaties/law Confused

Then the parliamentarians shouldn't have fucking agreed to the Withdrawal Bill then Shock

Effectively they're arguing that parliaments can always decide that they no longer want to abide by an international treaty that they don't like.

How incompetent can they be? AngryConfused Don't answer that Wink

I think, legally, they are 100% right. Parliament is supreme and sovereign. Which does make you wonder why we left the EU.

You and I are similarly supreme and sovereign. We can choose to do whatever we want. And we can then sit in a prison cell and reflect on that at leisure.

Admittedly the UK government is - as of now - unlikely to be sewing mailbags. But by the same token they can't get too arsey if other supreme and sovereign states suddenly don't want to do business with them. Or decide to take the same laissez faire approach to internation treaties.

In that regards, one to watch: Spain. I can see a move whereby they annex Gibraltar back "to ensure it's stability". And the Gibraltans already know they've been hung out to dry by the UK anyway.

mrslaughan · 10/09/2020 16:48

Shells braver man just got an "F" for her homework

twitter.com/profmarkelliott/status/1304076133827309569?s=21

FatCatThinCat · 10/09/2020 16:48

Effectively they're arguing that parliaments can always decide that they no longer want to abide by an international treaty that they don't like.

This is correct. What parliaments can't do is unilaterally change an international treaty to what they hoped it would be.

mrslaughan · 10/09/2020 16:49

Sorry for the crazy auto correct "Suella Braverman"

OchonAgusOchonO · 10/09/2020 16:49

@prettybird

So the government's "legal" word deliberately in quotes Wink argument is that parliamentary sovereignty trumps international treaties/law Confused

Then the parliamentarians shouldn't have fucking agreed to the Withdrawal Bill then Shock

Effectively they're arguing that parliaments can always decide that they no longer want to abide by an international treaty that they don't like.

How incompetent can they be? AngryConfused Don't answer that Wink

And that breaking an international treaty isn't unconstitutional under UK law. Well, that's ok then.

Sounds a bit like the "Do they not know who we are?" argument again.

UnaOfStormhold · 10/09/2020 16:52

So is this all just an attempt to provoke the EU into taking legal action so the Brexiters can say how nasty they are being? The catastrophic damage to what is left of the UK's international reputation (at a time when we need to make new deals so desperately) being a minor price to pay presumably!

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 16:55

And that breaking an international treaty isn't unconstitutional under UK law. Well, that's ok then.

You'd need to dig the bit of the constitution out that says it's illegal.

oops - we don't have one.

There is now a very real question of what the Palace will advise the Queen - as Head of State - to do. Although as we learned she "had to" sign off prorogation, even though it turned out to be unlawful.

It would be interesting, unprecedented (and probably unlikely) if she refused to sign an act of parliament which expressly reneges on an international treaty that she as Head of State previously signed.

We'd have to wait for the ping-pong between the Commons and Lords first though.

Darker · 10/09/2020 16:57

I certainly suspect its a ploy to get the EU to look like bullies to stir up anti-EU sentiment.

FatCatThinCat · 10/09/2020 17:00

So is this all just an attempt to provoke the EU into taking legal action so the Brexiters can say how nasty they are being? The catastrophic damage to what is left of the UK's international reputation (at a time when we need to make new deals so desperately) being a minor price to pay presumably!

The Scientists For The EU bloke said that he's done this as the EU aren't scared enough by no deal, so he's turned it into a bomb thinking the fear of it will get him what he wants. But it's not working.

Darker · 10/09/2020 17:00

Or maybe a ruse to get rid of the monarchy if the Queen won't sign. They have put her in a very difficult position by making it clear that they are knowingly breaking a treaty.

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 17:01

@Darker

I certainly suspect its a ploy to get the EU to look like bullies to stir up anti-EU sentiment.
To what end ? And if other countries decide to become very cagey with the UK - or even to abandon their treaty requirements - then are we going to end up in a corner saying "the whole world is wrong" ?

This was always the danger of indulging people whose shoe size exceeded their IQ.

FatCatThinCat · 10/09/2020 17:02

Wasn't it said during the prorogation debacle that the Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the advice of her ministers? That if they say it's legal she has to accept that even though she knows it isn't?

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 17:04

@Darker

Or maybe a ruse to get rid of the monarchy if the Queen won't sign. They have put her in a very difficult position by making it clear that they are knowingly breaking a treaty.
The Monarchy was on borrowed time the moment it was clear they have no purpose anymore beyond modelling hats, crowns, and keeping the gutter press ticking over on slow news days.

The question is, are they brave enough to make their passing mean something for the whole country, or are they just a load of posh privileged entitled twats only out for themselves.

My money is on (b).

FatCatThinCat · 10/09/2020 17:04

To what end ? And if other countries decide to become very cagey with the UK - or even to abandon their treaty requirements - then are we going to end up in a corner saying "the whole world is wrong" ?

His popularity is falling. He needs to stir up the brexit war for the masses to get them all fawning over him again. He doesn't give a shit whether the country sinks or swims so long as his ego is being stroked.

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 17:09

@FatCatThinCat

Wasn't it said during the prorogation debacle that the Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the advice of her ministers? That if they say it's legal she has to accept that even though she knows it isn't?
It's uncharted territory.

It's one thing to sign a bill that is contrary to the internal procedures of the UK.

It is entirely another to sign a bill which expressly repudiates a previously agreed international treaty with another sovereign state.

At the risk of "being dramatic" (and frankly the past 4 years have shown most people weren't being dramatic enough ...) that is pretty much exactly how wars start.

Lets look at Hitler, the Nazis and their "specific and limited" breaking of the Treaty of Versailles ... (apologies if my timelines out) ...

Remilitarisation of the Rhineland
Annexing the Sudetenland
Creation of an air force
introducing conscription
Anschluss

Pepperwort · 10/09/2020 17:15

The Monarchy was on borrowed time the moment it was clear they have no purpose anymore beyond modelling hats, crowns, and keeping the gutter press ticking over on slow news days.

The question is, are they brave enough to make their passing mean something for the whole country, or are they just a load of posh privileged entitled twats only out for themselves.

One more thing that’s worth remembering. She is old. Do we even know she still has the mind to be able to process all this. It has been said of QE1 that she reigned too long, unable to read and balance the factions any more. I do have a little sneaking sympathy for HM in this.

Pepperwort · 10/09/2020 17:17

Don’t mention the war, not while we’re still arguing about the damn fishes.

Peregrina · 10/09/2020 17:22

You'd need to dig the bit of the constitution out that says it's illegal.
oops - we don't have one.

I don't think that's quite true. It is true that it's not all written in one place. I wait to see what happens, which Tories have the guts to rebel, which Tory Lords have principles, and whether if it gets back to the HoC where the cronies pass it, whether her Majesty will sign it. I think she genuinely cares about the United Kingdom - but we will see.

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 17:24

One more thing that’s worth remembering. She is old. Do we even know she still has the mind to be able to process all this. It has been said of QE1 that she reigned too long, unable to read and balance the factions any more. I do have a little sneaking sympathy for HM in this.

I don't. I'm sure a life of privilege is enough compensation.

I have a memory from an article somewhere that it's a quirk of the Monarchs position that only they are allowed to see and handle government briefings. Not even Charles can.

So if you want to imagine how things could get even worse then Her Majesty passing away and the literal interregnum until Charles is up to speed is one thing to think about.

And if you want another, then a hung US Presidential election would be fun too.

Peregrina · 10/09/2020 17:24

She is old. Do we even know she still has the mind to be able to process all this.

She could abdicate. It's not the same situation that Edward VIII was in. She could sensibly have taken a leaf out of the books of the Dutch Royals, who abdicate when the heir is old enough but not too old, as Charles will be.

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 17:26

I wait to see what happens, which Tories have the guts to rebel, which Tory Lords have principles,

Here is my free PaddyPower Prediction.

Zero,

and

Zero.

DGRossetti · 10/09/2020 17:28

@Peregrina

She is old. Do we even know she still has the mind to be able to process all this.

She could abdicate. It's not the same situation that Edward VIII was in. She could sensibly have taken a leaf out of the books of the Dutch Royals, who abdicate when the heir is old enough but not too old, as Charles will be.

The Palace have repeatedly let it be known that she regards being Monarch as a sacred duty, not something you can just stop doing.

Obviously not sacred enough to actually honour her coronation pledge, because that would be silly. But certainly sacred enough to stay in power and ensure the Saxe-Coburgs Windsors do OK.

Pepperwort · 10/09/2020 17:32

Abdication would look like the best option there, yes. I would be a bit surprised if Charles wasn’t briefed to some extent, but he’s not young either.

MarshaBradyo · 10/09/2020 17:36

I’m going to try and understand what’s going on with Brexit and latest news which I have been ignoring, will revisit to find out

Swipe left for the next trending thread