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: Pah International Law. Who needs it?

978 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/09/2020 18:09

I mean its not as if trade deals and human rights are relevant is it?

(sorry eating my dinner so must be brief)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
69
Darker · 13/09/2020 09:54

Striking that it sweeps along behind the WA as yet another breech which will create an unnecessary clash with Europe. Its looking more and more deliberate.

Sostenueto · 13/09/2020 09:59

42 carehomes across UK have reported rising figures of Covid. Now we know why Covid wards being ordered to re -open!

yoikes · 13/09/2020 10:01

It won't be because of that sos
They don't send people in nursing homes to hospital if they have covid :(

Sostenueto · 13/09/2020 10:03

Well according to Robert Buckland they think a deal will be reached without change to WA being used but they need the change just in case they don't. Yes....riiigghht🤔

Peregrina · 13/09/2020 10:05

Well you see, human rights were exploited by those nasty furriners. When Johnson and his cronies come to lock good Daily Mail readers up, they will realise, but it will be too late.

TheABC · 13/09/2020 10:24

My lockdown hair colour.

I am trying to decide my breaking point. At what point do you accept the UK is finished and leave?

Westminstenders: Pah International Law. Who needs it?
DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 10:28

@Darker

If the Daily Mail comments are anything to go by this is going to be popular move... just one example:

'At last he's showing some mettle - the majority of British voters will love it and the left will be outraged. Now just get on and do it'

It's the Caesar playbook - ignore courts, the senate and tradition and simply appeal over their heads to the masses. It's rabble rousing.

Wait for the FTPA to become "perplexing" and elections optional.

prettybird · 13/09/2020 10:32

This is a new one to add to the "It's ok to break international law in a specific and limited way" Hmm

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1305070622343561221?s=21

So Buckland, the Lord Chancellor, will only resign if he sees the rule of law being broken "in a way that I find unacceptable" Hmm

Westminstenders: Pah International Law. Who needs it?
DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 10:38

I said a few days ago that breaking treaties is moreish .... Once you pop, you just can't stop.

DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 10:39

Thank goodness I don't need a QC at the moment. It's not like I could trust them anymore.

Pepperwort · 13/09/2020 11:02

I find I generally agree with “the rabble’s” assessment of issues facing us. Not all, but many, some of them viewed through different lenses. Their idea of solutions, maybe leading up to final solutions, is horrifying.

DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 11:16

@Pepperwort

In rl I had someone with a uni qualification, working in the area he qualified in, tell me universities were pointless not long ago. Sadly I was too dumbstruck to respond. Although there’s a certain justification when they’re primarily there to churn out paper qualifications for entry-level jobs.
Depends on your view ...

I think the recent fad that it's actually having a degree in that makes you instantly a shoe-in for is a bit too functional. It's a little like saying your house is just walls and a roof.

The whole value of University education was to teach critical thinking and communication to a high standard, centred around a subject. Which is why so many people that were managers in IT in the 80s had never seen a computer until they'd started work. But they had the necessary skills to code and to organise code.

But Universities had to become factories. And - thanks to Mrs T and her cabal - they did. Just mass producing graduates.

Completely apropos of nothing, but I found myself pondering on the nature of slavery, yesterday. And while everyone (thanks to recent propaganda) thinks slavery involves chains, whips and dodgy blues songs, it's a little more subtle than that. If you manage to exclude a huge swathe of people from the democratic process - by making them prisoners, or repeated jiggling with what it is to be "a subject", then you are effectively creating a society of slaves. People who have no access to the tools to determine their lives. Not all prisons have bars.

And that, is the final destination of that bus with "£350 million a week". To make us all serf, then slaves. By either removing our vote, or rendering it useless. And even as they do it, we're gladhanding ourselves about how wonderful democracy is.

bellinisurge · 13/09/2020 11:26

Coveney on Marr.
There aren't two sides.

twitter.com/newschambers/status/1305071187089854465?s=21

DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 11:59

.

Westminstenders: Pah International Law. Who needs it?
BoreOfWhabylon · 13/09/2020 12:03

pmk in the oasis of sanity. Thanks all.

Whenwillow · 13/09/2020 12:04

Fabulous cartoon DGR I assume that's the Times? He's always spot on!

ListeningQuietly · 13/09/2020 12:14

Hateis
Mushrooms were a funny shape because the grew up through my banana plants Smile

Whenwillow
Private Eye is on it with cartoons at the moment.

I plan to enjoy the sunshine for the next week and avoid interacting with other people as much as possible because most of them sadden me.

DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 12:22

Can't say where the cartoon originated - it flitted past my feed.

If the UK were a plc, then Boris would have been removed long ago simply for his erratic behaviour.

It's hard for a reasonable person to come to any other conclusion other than the cabinet have been gripped by a mass delusion. Maybe they'll believe they can fly next ?

Whenwillow · 13/09/2020 12:26

Thanks @ListeningQuietly - the BJ hair is very similar to the Times cartoons.

I too am avoiding people as I was informed yesterday that only greedy gluttonous people will suffer if the shops get empty, and people should employ blitz spirit and grow their own food. All people have a place for a vegetable patch, apparently, and I got side eyes when I enquired as to what she would be harvesting in February
Confused Angry

DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 12:34

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/12/when-even-the-attorney-general-flouts-the-law-what-hope-does-britain-have-suella-braverman

theguardian.com
So what lies behind ultra-loyalist Suella Braverman’s rise to the top? | Nick Cohen
Nick Cohen
6-7 minutes

If you wanted to be kind, you could say that the attorney general is no worse than any other politician on the make: she advances her career by telling her party what it wants to hear. If you wanted to be unkind, you could say that the attorney general is a deluded dogmatist who feeds the paranoia of the Tory party’s base while betraying her professional principles to please its dictatorial leaders.

I want to be unkind because the British constitution (what’s left of it) says that the law officers should not be like other politicians. The lord chancellor, as head of the Ministry of Justice, swears an oath promising he “will respect the rule of law”. The attorney general is the government’s barrister, who, in the words of the Conservative MP and former solicitor general Oliver Heald, must make sure that “ministers act lawfully, in accordance with the rule of law”.

Yet Suella Braverman, the attorney general, and Robert Buckland, the lord chancellor, have told Boris Johnson’s ministers and the civil service that they are just fine with them breaching international law and tearing up the EU withdrawal agreement. The Treasury solicitor, Sir Jonathan Jones, resigned rather than allow Johnson to besmirch his good name. But further up the hierarchy, the law officers have surrendered without a fight, without even wanting a fight, without even grasping why there needed to be a fight. As they were always going to. Their willingness to bend to his will is why Johnson appointed them in the first place.

Johnson understands the fatal weakness of liberal democracy. Like a gangster eying up the cops as he moves into a new territory, he knows that its defences count for nothing if he can control law enforcement. Let the strongman take power and he can subvert laws and conventions, however immutable the naive imagine them to be.

The attorney general must make sure that “ministers act lawfully, in accordance with the rule of law”. Yeah? Really? Look what Johnson’s gone and got himself: an attorney general who says he can do what the hell he likes! Johnson has chosen well. Braverman has been auditioning for the role of useful idiot for years and bears as much responsibility as Johnson does for our collapse into gormless authoritarianism.

People should pay more attention to the tales she spun about herself as she built her career on the right. Appealing to the prejudices of Tory party members on the Conservative Home website, Braverman cast herself as a victim of progressive snobbery. “When I was involved in my University Conservative branch at Cambridge in the early 2000s, Blair-supporting friends were constantly baffled by my political allegiance. Starting my career as a young barrister in London, I was the shy Tory in my chambers of ‘right-on’ human rights lawyers. Despite the social stigma, I was inspired by Conservative values of freedom from an interventionist state, personal responsibility and choice.”

This is the sob story that has taken Britain out of the EU and taken Johnson into Downing Street. Liberal elitists block anyone who challenges them and look down their dainty noses at the solid, traditional values of good old England. To read Braverman you would think she had fallen in with the young Cherie Blair at Matrix Chambers or another metropolitan nest of “activist lawyers”. Barristers, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity for fear that the attorney general’s office would blacklist them, said she went to 2-3 Gray’s Inn Square (now Cornerstone) when she arrived in London in 2005. Far from being a chambers of “right-on” lawyers, it was filled with regular barristers whose number had included Patrick Ground, a former Tory MP. She and her colleagues were not fighting the police and the Home Office. They were dealing with ordinary disputes about development plans and the licensing of pubs and betting offices. Important work, no doubt about it, but hardly the frontline of the struggle for civil liberties.

When she moved on to a large set of Birmingham barristers, her profile boasted that she was a “contributor to Philip Kolvin QC’s book Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration (2007)”. Not much to boast about to you and me, but in the legal world it would be considered a significant achievement for a young lawyer to be a part of an authoritative legal textbook. Unfortunately, Braverman’s name does not appear anywhere in the volume.

The Conservative press built her up as a Premier League barrister rather than a jobbing lawyer who did everyday parole and immigration cases. She had defended “the Ministry of Defence in the Guantánamo Bay inquiry”, according to reports. Her own website says she was “involved”.

Private Eye has tried, I have tried and lawyers have tried to find a record of her defending the MoD at a Guantánamo inquiry. We are still trying.

I emailed Braverman’s office and asked what her work at the Guantánamo inquiry had been. I asked about her contributions to legal textbooks and for the name of her “right-on” human rights chambers. I gave 24 hours notice and phoned to check if her staff had received the email. At the time we went to press, she was unable to comment. Braverman’s resentment speaks for itself, however. It is not the resentment of the poor or oppressed but of the privileged who don’t quite make it to the top. Perhaps in her mind, liberal lawyers did sneer at her or would have done if they had the chance. Perhaps she would have been saved from a run-of-the-mill legal career if only she had been given a break. Amid the confusion in the stories she tells about herself, Braverman’s self-pitying, unproved belief that the legal system, with its Human Rights Act, judges appointed without political interference and respect for the rule of law, has somehow stigmatised her rings true. She is taking her vengeance now.

• Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

DGRossetti · 13/09/2020 12:34

I think the day you suddenly realise you have to rely on lawyers to save you, is the day you realise you are well fucked.

Mistigri · 13/09/2020 12:39

Gearing up to go on campus tomorrow and face pandemonium, plus fallout from fcking anti-masker colleagues refusing to wear theirs in classrooms.*

I really feel for teachers. But on my son's campus, where COVID is now rampant (4 confirmed and at least 6 suspected cases in his class of 24), the transmission appears to be happening outside the classroom. So keep clear of anti mask colleagues, eat outdoors at lunchtime and open every window you possibly can. Bon courage Thanks

BigChocFrenzy · 13/09/2020 12:41

I'm 99.9% certain that the EU would not shorten the transition period
they might have considered doing so if BJ had announced in February he was reneging,

  • but only provided this was legally justified by the UK actions, which is not clear at this stage

However, they have given the UK a month, which leaves under 3 months left - not worth the hassle of cutting that

Come 1 January 2021 though:
GB should expect no favours (NI would be protected as much as possible)

A thought - I wonder if BJ/Cum might end transition, in another tantrum, just "to show the EU" !

ListeningQuietly · 13/09/2020 12:43

Whenwillow
and I got side eyes when I enquired as to what she would be harvesting in February
If she does not know then she's an eejit.
In my case - leeks, kale, carrots will all be picked fresh in February.
Spuds will be in their clamp and winter squash on the shelf.

Whenwillow · 13/09/2020 12:51

Listening no, she has a garden but no vegetable patch.

Swipe left for the next trending thread