Brexit mega thread part 6: Invasion and Evasion

[Opal8]

New thread

Iirc, SCOTUK was set up without the consent of the devolved administration of Scotland, which has a separate legal system.

And for the record, would have no issue in an independent Scotland, of having the ECJ as the final arbiter. It's only on rare occasions that cases go all the way to the ECJ and only if the national law is incompatible with how the national government had agreed to write the law (as a member of the EU who has contributed to the communitaire acquis have enjoyed some nice wine in celebration of the French Grand Chelem and am struggling to articulate myself well

We’re still screwed if in our dealings with the EU (our biggest trading partner for reasons of history, proximity and economics) we don’t abide by their laws. So where does not being in the ECJ actually get us? I fail to see any actual benefit.

Just reading today's newspaper headlines, I see that Johnson and Gove were at a Tory fundraiser where at least one of the participants had links to Russia, on the eve of the Ukraine invasion.

I also see that they knew about P& O the night before the staff were told and failed to challenge it.

Yet some people think that the EU was the enemy!

It’s been raised before that the UK no longer being subject to the rulings of a foreign court ie ECJ is a benefit of Brexit. Yet, it doesn’t seem to matter that the UK is subject to the rulings of a foreign institutions such as the WTO. It’s such a cherry picking approach. Yes it’s okay to submit to some ‘external’ bodies, but somehow not others?

Whilst in the EU, the UK had 3 UK judges on the court to hear cases. Now, there’s no British judges to hear cases affecting UK companies who must comply with all EU regulations if they want to trade with the EU and that falls under the jurisdiction of all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations. I struggle to see that as a Brexit benefit for British firms.

But we can hardly blame Louise or others for repeating this selective and partial view of international relations and trade given that bloody Theresa May used to bang on about the ECJ ad nauseum and she did know better.

As it is, we’ve swapped the bureaucracy of Brussels, that for all its many faults had a more trustworthy rules-based system, for the Eton elites and their power-based system to rule us. And this venal, mendacious and seemingly corrupt lot that we’ve currently got can rest easy in the knowledge of being largely immune from scrutiny thanks to Brexit. That certainly is a Brexit benefit for them.

Btw, I read that the govt is sure to pass legislation overturning the fixed Parliament act and giving the PM power to determine election timings.

Btw, I read that the govt is sure to pass legislation overturning the fixed Parliament act and giving the PM power to determine election timings.

This could backfire on them, plus the requirement to have ID to vote. (Well I hope so anyway.)

Their precious Red Wall voters are busily being shafted while Southern English Tories are bemoaning that the behaviour of the current Government is not cricket.

.

Would we notice if they repealed the fixed term election provision?

It was introduced in 2011, and only one election since then has been at the 5 year point (2010-2015) then two at 2+ years.

Whereas without that law, in the period since the election of Margaret Thatcher until 2010, all 6 general elections were at 4 or 5 years.

Whitehall officials tried to justify P&O Ferries’ sacking of 800 workers by telling ministers it would “ensure that they remain a key player in the UK market for years to come through restructuring”, a leaked memo shows.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/65d5d462-a7c5-11ec-a9dd-14c997a643ea?shareToken=4f1f734ff571a86daaa012d3f1e34e4f

@DrBlackbird

It’s been raised before that the UK no longer being subject to the rulings of a foreign court ie ECJ is a benefit of Brexit. Yet, it doesn’t seem to matter that the UK is subject to the rulings of a foreign institutions such as the WTO. It’s such a cherry picking approach. Yes it’s okay to submit to some ‘external’ bodies, but somehow not others?

Whilst in the EU, the UK had 3 UK judges on the court to hear cases. Now, there’s no British judges to hear cases affecting UK companies who must comply with all EU regulations if they want to trade with the EU and that falls under the jurisdiction of all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations. I struggle to see that as a Brexit benefit for British firms.

But we can hardly blame Louise or others for repeating this selective and partial view of international relations and trade given that bloody Theresa May used to bang on about the ECJ ad nauseum and she did know better.

As it is, we’ve swapped the bureaucracy of Brussels, that for all its many faults had a more trustworthy rules-based system, for the Eton elites and their power-based system to rule us. And this venal, mendacious and seemingly corrupt lot that we’ve currently got can rest easy in the knowledge of being largely immune from scrutiny thanks to Brexit. That certainly is a Brexit benefit for them.

Btw, I read that the govt is sure to pass legislation overturning the fixed Parliament act and giving the PM power to determine election timings.

Turning this on its head then. If I like that we are part of one international organisation, say the UN or the IMF, does that mean I have to like all the other that we are party to as well?

Maybe I like that we are party to those two but I'm less keen on the World Bank, or NATO??

I'm guessing there are some external bodies the UK is part of that you aren't keen on either?

I’m not sure that my being ‘keen’ or ‘not keen’ is how I see it. Neither do I see it as picking one multilateral club and rejecting another. It is pragmatism. We need rules-based systems at the global level.

The UK is part of a highly internationalised and interdependent financial and economic system whether you or I like it or not. When poor people in the US began to default on their mortgages, UK financial institutions were hit hard because of this. For the record, although there are many negative aspects to this (Joe taxpayer bailing out rich bankers), I see it as being better than the alternative.

Trying to pick and choose is counterproductive. Very much reminds me of Trump threatening to pull out of the UN and pulling out of WHO and the Paris Accord. If you agree that it’s a good thing that British firms can sell their goods abroad then you have to accept being part of WTO. The whole point to NATO was to prevent another Hitler.

At the global level, it is all about negotiating and compromise and pragmatism. Nothing can go always in favour of one country all the time. Although it’s safe to say that the US attempts this. It is being part of those multilateral systems of governance that allows for some checks and balance.

The UK is vastly weaker economically and politically for being out of the EU and turning its back on the ECJ and many other European institutions. But yet here we are. So be it.

At the global level, it is all about negotiating and compromise and pragmatism. Nothing can go always in favour of one country all the time. Although it’s safe to say that the US attempts this.

And about the only times it's ever unsuccessful is when it's dealing with the EU...

As ever with brexshitters
It's about feelz not facts

As they will discover Feelz won't feed their kids or heat their home nor provide cheap labour to pick fruit, drive lorries or look after Granny...

Feelz doesn't seem to be protecting workers jobs either, although being out of the EU, we should have rushed to improve workers standards.

That P&O debacle has everything. Sneaky underhand practice from the ferry operator - clearly long in the planning - Whitehall/Government apparently condoning it unthinkingly, threat to freeports (Sunak’s pet scheme), pension fund difficulties, goodness me what a shitshow.

And in "does the Pope shit in the woods" news...

@HannibalHeyes

And in "does the Pope shit in the woods" news...

Presumably using these threads as exemplars ?

And I daresay we're going to see rather more of these lovely people in the years to come!

Depressed PMK
Diesel 183 here this evening.

But yay!, we hold all the cards, apparently...

25.6%of households in my county will be fuel poor when the new price cap comes in, equivalent to41941households in the area.

Good Times

@ChiswickFlo

25.6%of households in my county will be fuel poor when the new price cap comes in, equivalent to41941households in the area.

Good Times

So ?

I've been told that anything less than 52% doesn't count.

Pippa Crerar
I'm told by Govt sources that it's "looking unlikely" that Boris Johnson will be invited to European Council meeting in Brussels on Thursday. Some anger there about what the PM did/ didn't mean by his remarks in Blackpool...

Brexit La-La land

.

@DuncinToffee

Pippa Crerar I'm told by Govt sources that it's "looking unlikely" that Boris Johnson will be invited to European Council meeting in Brussels on Thursday. Some anger there about what the PM did/ didn't mean by his remarks in Blackpool...

Brexit La-La land

It is richly ironic that now the EU looks serious about moving into a defence capability (remember that was the "reason" some gave for leaving) the UK will have to watch from the sidelines.

I wonder how long before Brexiteers start bleating about not being involved ?

@ChiswickFlo

25.6%of households in my county will be fuel poor when the new price cap comes in, equivalent to41941households in the area.

Good Times

That's awful, we shouldn't be in this situation in 2022. I hope there will be more help than the Warm Home grant or whatever it is called which barely puts a dent in price increases, I'm not holding out much hope for that. I don't know how people are supposed to afford the price rises.