Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Quite.
"We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
But you just did. Remind us again what immigration/transport rules have changed during the transition period? "We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
amusingduck said:
El stovey said:
vonuber said:
The problem with Brexit is that it won't solve the problems in this country, as they are largely home grown.
Exactly. People feeling disconnected or ignored, wealth inequality, wage stagnation, Immigration, automation, break up of the family unit, lack of father figures, people in authority setting a bad example, lack of personal responsibility, mental health issues, social media, intolerance, polarisation of everything, tribal politics, pandemics etc etc These issues affect most if not all western democracies though and Britain is still pretty great overall.
You go for a run or into town etc people aren’t actually fighting over brexit or Boris or cancel culture etc It’s just in some forums and parts of the internet. It’s easy to think these ‘issues’ are bigger than they actually are.
"wealth inequality, wage stagnation, Immigration, automation"
You might question the automation, but in that respect it is more being able to effectively tax those corporations selling automation solutions. It would be very easy to see a scenario where the future IT giants of automation went down the Amazon route.
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Quite.
"We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
But you just did. Remind us again what immigration/transport rules have changed during the transition period? "We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
markyb_lcy said:
Immigration/transport rules changing aren't going to make a jot of difference anyway ... they're turning up illegitimately on dingys and hidden in the back of lorries.
Depends on the nature of the changes.Australia had far less of a problem with illegal migration by sea once they made changes to theirs.
markyb_lcy said:
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Quite.
"We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
But you just did. Remind us again what immigration/transport rules have changed during the transition period? "We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
Fittster said:
markyb_lcy said:
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Quite.
"We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
But you just did. Remind us again what immigration/transport rules have changed during the transition period? "We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
commonslibrary said:
What will happen post-Brexit?
In a no-deal scenario the UK will no longer participate in Dublin III. The Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will come into force on exit day and revoke the Dublin Arrangements, although existing family reunion applications will be processed. If the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified the UK would remain in Dublin III during the implementation period.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/home-affairs/immigration/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/In a no-deal scenario the UK will no longer participate in Dublin III. The Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 will come into force on exit day and revoke the Dublin Arrangements, although existing family reunion applications will be processed. If the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified the UK would remain in Dublin III during the implementation period.
Fittster said:
markyb_lcy said:
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Quite.
"We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
But you just did. Remind us again what immigration/transport rules have changed during the transition period? "We want to take back control of our borders we simply have to leave the EU"
"OK we've left the EU so now you have control of your borders"
"Somebody has to tell the French to stop people coming to the UK"
You couldn't make it up
You have to intercept illegal arrivals to do anything at all with them.
Jazzer77 said:
Delusional analysis.
Remainers are annoyed as what has been predicted all along is finally happening.
The only thing that has actually happened so far is that we have left the EU in accordance with Article 50, which various Remainers on here and elsewhere predicted wouldn't happen. Hung Parliament leading to anti-Brexit rainbow coalition, anyone? Pretty much everything else is TBC.Remainers are annoyed as what has been predicted all along is finally happening.
Fair play to Boris on assembling a Cabinet that will do extraordinary things for him.
Brandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Brandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
JPJPJP said:
Fair play to Boris on assembling a Cabinet that will do extraordinary things for him.
Brandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Sounds somewhat less dramatic than you are making outBrandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Lewis said:
I would say to my honourable friend that, yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We’re taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by article 4 in certain very tightly defined circumstances.
There are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. And I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act in 2013 which contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule.
And I would say to my honourable friend we are determined to ensure we are delivering on the agreement we have in the protocol and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the joint committee work. The clauses which will be in the bill tomorrow are specifically there for should that fail to ensure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
A follow on from the previous remarkThere are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. And I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act in 2013 which contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule.
And I would say to my honourable friend we are determined to ensure we are delivering on the agreement we have in the protocol and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the joint committee work. The clauses which will be in the bill tomorrow are specifically there for should that fail to ensure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
Guardian said:
In response to Theresa May, Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, said that the UK had worked with the EU “in a spirit of good faith” and that it was continuing to do so. But he claimed the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol were “not like any other treaty”. He explained:
It is written on the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached between us and the EU on the detail. That is the entire purpose of the specialised joint committee. And we continue to believe that that is possible. But as a responsible government we cannot allow businesses to not have certainty for January.
And the reality is that the UK internal market bill and the finance bill are last legislative opportunities that we have to give that certainty and confidence to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland that we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, outlined in the manifesto and what we set out in the command paper.
Hardcore remainers haven't made clear how there is supposed to be a joint committee to agree necessary matters over NI if agreement hasn't been reached?It is written on the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached between us and the EU on the detail. That is the entire purpose of the specialised joint committee. And we continue to believe that that is possible. But as a responsible government we cannot allow businesses to not have certainty for January.
And the reality is that the UK internal market bill and the finance bill are last legislative opportunities that we have to give that certainty and confidence to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland that we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, outlined in the manifesto and what we set out in the command paper.
JPJPJP said:
Fair play to Boris on assembling a Cabinet that will do extraordinary things for him.
Brandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Margaret Thatcher "Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make."Brandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Brandon Lewis "It's only in a limited way."
People on PistonHeads "This is absolutely fine."
I wonder how many of them thought they'd be an apologist for that kind of thing
JagLover said:
JPJPJP said:
Fair play to Boris on assembling a Cabinet that will do extraordinary things for him.
Brandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Sounds somewhat less dramatic than you are making outBrandon Lewis standing in the HoC confirming that the government will break international law is one such thing
If, a year ago, you had asked those that know Brandon - his mother, his friends, his staff for instance - if they thought he would do that, what do you think they would say?
Lewis said:
I would say to my honourable friend that, yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We’re taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect required by article 4 in certain very tightly defined circumstances.
There are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. And I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act in 2013 which contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule.
And I would say to my honourable friend we are determined to ensure we are delivering on the agreement we have in the protocol and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the joint committee work. The clauses which will be in the bill tomorrow are specifically there for should that fail to ensure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
A follow on from the previous remarkThere are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. And I would say to honourable members here, many of whom would have been in this house when we passed the Finance Act in 2013 which contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflicted with the general anti-abuse rule.
And I would say to my honourable friend we are determined to ensure we are delivering on the agreement we have in the protocol and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the joint committee work. The clauses which will be in the bill tomorrow are specifically there for should that fail to ensure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
Guardian said:
In response to Theresa May, Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, said that the UK had worked with the EU “in a spirit of good faith” and that it was continuing to do so. But he claimed the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol were “not like any other treaty”. He explained:
It is written on the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached between us and the EU on the detail. That is the entire purpose of the specialised joint committee. And we continue to believe that that is possible. But as a responsible government we cannot allow businesses to not have certainty for January.
And the reality is that the UK internal market bill and the finance bill are last legislative opportunities that we have to give that certainty and confidence to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland that we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, outlined in the manifesto and what we set out in the command paper.
Hardcore remainers haven't made clear how there is supposed to be a joint committee to agree necessary matters over NI if agreement hasn't been reached?It is written on the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached between us and the EU on the detail. That is the entire purpose of the specialised joint committee. And we continue to believe that that is possible. But as a responsible government we cannot allow businesses to not have certainty for January.
And the reality is that the UK internal market bill and the finance bill are last legislative opportunities that we have to give that certainty and confidence to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland that we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, outlined in the manifesto and what we set out in the command paper.
JagLover said:
Sounds somewhat less dramatic than you are making out
Well the permanent secretary to the Government Legal Department has just resigned over the matter and a Secretary of State has just told the HoC that the government will break international lawI'd say that is a reasonably dramatic start to a Tuesday afternoon.
JPJPJP said:
JagLover said:
Sounds somewhat less dramatic than you are making out
Well the permanent secretary to the Government Legal Department has just resigned over the matter and a Secretary of State has just told the HoC that the government will break international lawI'd say that is a reasonably dramatic start to a Tuesday afternoon.
Regarding the "very specific and limited way":
“There are clear precedents for the U.K. and indeed other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change,” Lewis said.
JPJPJP said:
Well the permanent secretary to the Government Legal Department has just resigned over the matter and a Secretary of State has just told the HoC that the government will break international law
I'd say that is a reasonably dramatic start to a Tuesday afternoon.
As I say it depends on the nature of the change.I'd say that is a reasonably dramatic start to a Tuesday afternoon.
I do not support simply tearing up the WA, regardless of how much the EU have not negotiated in good faith on a FTA subsequent to the signing of a WA that gave them most of what they wanted.
If there is indeed an urgent need to provide further detail and clarification and this is a technical breach for the UK government to do unilaterally, but unavoidable due to no agreement being reached, then that seems to me to both a minor technical issue and understandable.
As for the civil servant. Permanent secretaries are on fixed contracts (since 2014) that have to be renewed by the government. A dedicated remainer who (reading between the lines) may have been the source for the leak was unlikely to be reappointed. His "principled" stand seems to be saying that he will go when his contract runs out in April.
Newsnight gave its view on what the changes would be last night (the whole programme is infinitely more watchable without Maitliss and Barnett whining) and it seemed quite succinctly put...(https://theglobalherald.com/news/what-happened-to-boris-johnsons-oven-ready-brexit-deal-bbc-newsnight/)
1) rules on goods inbound from NI to ensure NI's unfettered access to the rUK market (per the WA). This doesn't seem in the slightest contentious...so introducing clarifications as a rule obviously isn't a generic "bad thing"
2) goods from rUK to RoI...UK wanting to determine which ones are considered "at risk" - was intended to be a joint decision, but we're saying now we should decide. Seems like one introduced as a "gimme" to me
3) A grey area not clarified in the WA around state aid and what happens (presumably) if state aid given to a firm in rUK has knock on benefits to one in NI. We want the ability to determine this solely...I suspect this is the big banana bearing in mind the EU's position on an FTA and what it should entail. I suspect the choice of this one to have front and centre was very deliberate...
All of these should really have been better clarified ahead of the WA being signed, but I suspect no WA would have been signed if it had been pushed.
I'm not convinced any are that big a deal in terms of international standing. The first one is uncontroversial (in theory). The second looks like over-reach/brinkmanship. The third is something nobody else would expect anyway.
I don't think it a great idea to break treaties you've signed, especially not recently and by the same people still in power. But equally the noises coming out of government right now - about the intentions on an FTA being done in good faith to facilitate the ongoing legitimacy of the WA - have some merit.
A good part of me wishes we'd have stuck to getting this clarified at the time and if that wasn't possible, going over the "cliff edge". Expose it for what it was. But we are where we are.
I imagine Frost's conversations at the moment are along the lines of "you're not getting oversight on state aid, FTA or no FTA, no matter what it takes. So if you want an FTA let's forget that. Otherwise we'll see you later". I'd have preferred if they'd kept this at the negotiation table rather than in the press, but then the EU aren't keen on keeping things there. So here we are.
The next 4wks will be amusing.
1) rules on goods inbound from NI to ensure NI's unfettered access to the rUK market (per the WA). This doesn't seem in the slightest contentious...so introducing clarifications as a rule obviously isn't a generic "bad thing"
2) goods from rUK to RoI...UK wanting to determine which ones are considered "at risk" - was intended to be a joint decision, but we're saying now we should decide. Seems like one introduced as a "gimme" to me
3) A grey area not clarified in the WA around state aid and what happens (presumably) if state aid given to a firm in rUK has knock on benefits to one in NI. We want the ability to determine this solely...I suspect this is the big banana bearing in mind the EU's position on an FTA and what it should entail. I suspect the choice of this one to have front and centre was very deliberate...
All of these should really have been better clarified ahead of the WA being signed, but I suspect no WA would have been signed if it had been pushed.
I'm not convinced any are that big a deal in terms of international standing. The first one is uncontroversial (in theory). The second looks like over-reach/brinkmanship. The third is something nobody else would expect anyway.
I don't think it a great idea to break treaties you've signed, especially not recently and by the same people still in power. But equally the noises coming out of government right now - about the intentions on an FTA being done in good faith to facilitate the ongoing legitimacy of the WA - have some merit.
A good part of me wishes we'd have stuck to getting this clarified at the time and if that wasn't possible, going over the "cliff edge". Expose it for what it was. But we are where we are.
I imagine Frost's conversations at the moment are along the lines of "you're not getting oversight on state aid, FTA or no FTA, no matter what it takes. So if you want an FTA let's forget that. Otherwise we'll see you later". I'd have preferred if they'd kept this at the negotiation table rather than in the press, but then the EU aren't keen on keeping things there. So here we are.
The next 4wks will be amusing.
If standing by the WA was something that for the UK Govt was going to be dependant on further treaties such as a FTA being agreed and signed, then we should not have agreed to the WA in the first place.
Is there not a legal way to extract ourselves from the obligations we have previously agreed to?
"Oven ready"
Is there not a legal way to extract ourselves from the obligations we have previously agreed to?
"Oven ready"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff