Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)

[Sway]

Has anyone bothered to look at why the government are putting forward these clauses?

Or doesn't that matter in the leap to partially quote?

Of course, you'll all be able to point to your immense online criticisms of the last time we did exactly the same thing, in 2013 - or are you working on the basis of assuming this is something completely novel?

[JagLover]

Blue62 said:

Vanden Saab said:

So no laws broken then just the usual suspects talking utter bks again

Lewis effectively told the house that it’s government policy to break international law but it’s ok because it’s only done in a ‘specific and limited way’. You rest easy if you wish, but to some observers it looks as though there is a bit of a meltdown here, with no obvious political way out. PMQs should be interesting tomorrow.

The WA was signed with the heavy expectation that there would a FTA to follow that would minimise the impact on NI of the WA.

The EU just then did what it usually does and put unrealistic obstacles in place of a FTA once it had banked the concessions.

It also left many things unclear in relation to the NI backstop that were supposed to be resolved by a joint commission and if there is no agreement then there will be no joint commission to interpret it.

Boris is in a very different position now than he was back when the WA was signed. After all the spring cleaning it is hard to believe there will be 40 Tory MPs left who will put the EU before their own country.

Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 8th September 18:18

[Vanden Saab]

bhstewie said:

Vanden Saab said:

So no laws broken then just the usual suspects talking utter bks again

You asked a question and I linked to a video of a Government Minister standing in the House of Commons quite literally being asked whether the Government intended breaking international law and answering "Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.".

And that's what you come back with.

That's really quite something

markyb_lcy said:

I wonder how knowingly and overtly breaking international law (so soon after signing and with the same team in govt) helps or hinders our trustworthiness with other nations,

So no law broken yet in which case you will have to agree with me that the post I quoted is in fact utter bks as I pointed out and if the EU get their finger out and agree the administration of the protocol the technical breach of the WA will not happen...

[citizensm1th]

Christ we have Olympic standard pin head dancing and we are still on page one

[bitchstewie]

Vanden Saab said:

So no law broken yet in which case you will have to agree with me that the post I quoted is in fact utter bks as I pointed out and if the EU get their finger out and agree the administration of the protocol the technical breach of the WA will not happen...

A Government Minister has stood in the HoC today and publicly said that's what the legislation does.

If you don't want people to think you're planning on breaking international law perhaps don't make a statement in the HoC saying that's your plan?

Andrew Neil is pretty well respected and if he's saying it's a stshow it's probably a stshow.

[markyb_lcy]

Vanden Saab said:

bhstewie said:

Vanden Saab said:

So no laws broken then just the usual suspects talking utter bks again

You asked a question and I linked to a video of a Government Minister standing in the House of Commons quite literally being asked whether the Government intended breaking international law and answering "Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.".

And that's what you come back with.

That's really quite something

markyb_lcy said:

I wonder how knowingly and overtly breaking international law (so soon after signing and with the same team in govt) helps or hinders our trustworthiness with other nations,

So no law broken yet in which case you will have to agree with me that the post I quoted is in fact utter bks as I pointed out and if the EU get their finger out and agree the administration of the protocol the technical breach of the WA will not happen...

What exactly is “utter bks”?

The govt is proposing a domestic law that knowingly and overtly breaks international law and I’m considering how that might affect our trustworthiness with other nations in the face of us being keen to strike up trade deals around the world.

[Sway]

markyb_lcy said:

What exactly is “utter bks”?

The govt is proposing a domestic law that knowingly and overtly breaks international law and I’m considering how that might affect our trustworthiness with other nations in the face of us being keen to strike up trade deals around the world.

How did doing exactly that (actually doing it) in 2013 affect our trustworthiness or affect the signing of the trade deals we've signed in the last few years?

Do you think they'll leave open areas subject to unconfirmed future agreement that can't be guaranteed and therefore needing clarification for our internal market operations?

[Blue62]

Sway said:

Has anyone bothered to look at why the government are putting forward these clauses?

Or doesn't that matter in the leap to partially quote?

Of course, you'll all be able to point to your immense online criticisms of the last time we did exactly the same thing, in 2013 - or are you working on the basis of assuming this is something completely novel?

You’re talking about a change in the finance act, the stakes are rather different this time and the consequences far reaching. Wherever you stand on the issue this is a critical move, underlining the difficulty of achieving a political solution. I didn’t read anyone suggesting that this is novel, but even if they did would precedence be the case for the defence?

Times and circumstances change, but this may well backfire on the U.K.

[Tuna]

bhstewie said:

Tuna said:

So now you've decided it is something to do with the ERG?

I can't keep up.

Tuna I've read Andrew Neil's tweet several times and I have no idea why you're going on about the ERG when I've made absolutely no mention of them.

Andrew Neil makes no mention of them either.

Absolutely my fault - complete apologies there. Mixed up Lewis and Jenkins. In my defence, all Tories look the same to me.

I won't delete the original message or this'll make no sense. Hold my hands up to that one.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Vanden Saab said:

So no law broken yet in which case you will have to agree with me that the post I quoted is in fact utter bks as I pointed out and if the EU get their finger out and agree the administration of the protocol the technical breach of the WA will not happen...

A Government Minister has stood in the HoC today and publicly said that's what the legislation does.

If you don't want people to think you're planning on breaking international law perhaps don't make a statement in the HoC saying that's your plan?

Andrew Neil is pretty well respected and if he's saying it's a stshow it's probably a stshow.

It is indeed a stshow.

Zero argument there.

Now, just try to put yourself into an objective frame of mind...

How, exactly, would you like the government to manage a potential large hole in the operation of our internal market where in order for there not to be a bilateral agreement must occur?

Should we just leave it and hope for the best?

Please note - I have a few times in the last couple of days been critical of both the timing and the comms regarding this, I am far from being a blind supporter.

[markyb_lcy]

Sway said:

markyb_lcy said:

What exactly is “utter bks”?

The govt is proposing a domestic law that knowingly and overtly breaks international law and I’m considering how that might affect our trustworthiness with other nations in the face of us being keen to strike up trade deals around the world.

How did doing exactly that (actually doing it) in 2013 affect our trustworthiness or affect the signing of the trade deals we've signed in the last few years?

It's rather difficult to ascertain, is it not?

Gut feeling says "not positively".

Which international law / treaty did we break in 2013? I asked a question earlier on when this was last done by the UK govt and nobody piped up.

[markyb_lcy]

Sway said:

How, exactly, would you like the government to manage a potential large hole in the operation of our internal market where in order for there not to be a bilateral agreement must occur?

As I said earlier, if the WA could not be held to in entirety and in isolation, they shouldn't have bloody signed it.

Oven ready, my arse.

[Sway]

markyb_lcy said:

Sway said:

markyb_lcy said:

What exactly is “utter bks”?

The govt is proposing a domestic law that knowingly and overtly breaks international law and I’m considering how that might affect our trustworthiness with other nations in the face of us being keen to strike up trade deals around the world.

How did doing exactly that (actually doing it) in 2013 affect our trustworthiness or affect the signing of the trade deals we've signed in the last few years?

It's rather difficult to ascertain, is it not?

Gut feeling says "not positively".

Which international law / treaty did we break in 2013? I asked a question earlier on when this was last done by the UK govt and nobody piped up.

Finance Act 2013. Explained in the very response given by Brandon Lewis...

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

It is indeed a stshow.

Zero argument there.

Now, just try to put yourself into an objective frame of mind...

How, exactly, would you like the government to manage a potential large hole in the operation of our internal market where in order for there not to be a bilateral agreement must occur?

Should we just leave it and hope for the best?

Please note - I have a few times in the last couple of days been critical of both the timing and the comms regarding this, I am far from being a blind supporter.

I think this is where I usually get accused of simply pointing out problems whilst not having solutions?

I don't know how they fix it.

I don't do trade I work in IT.

Perhaps they should have thought about that before agreeing to it?

I can count on no hands the number of times I've gone to my boss having made a mess of something and said "Now I've got a great plan on how we fix this and it will involve breaking the law but in a very limited and specific way".

You'll notice I'm not advocating simply doing whatever the EU wants either.

This isn't about some weird idea that we must remain in the EU.

It's simply about the fking mess Johnson has made.

[Tuna]

Sway said:

It is indeed a stshow.

Zero argument there.

Now, just try to put yourself into an objective frame of mind...

How, exactly, would you like the government to manage a potential large hole in the operation of our internal market where in order for there not to be a bilateral agreement must occur?

Should we just leave it and hope for the best?

Please note - I have a few times in the last couple of days been critical of both the timing and the comms regarding this, I am far from being a blind supporter.

This is indeed the key question. Of course it puts the government in an unwinnable situation, to the critics' delight:

They're incompetent! They left a massive hole in the WA!

They're law breakers! They've amended a treaty!

No-one appears willing to engage with the actual change being made, it's just point scoring from here on...

[Vanden Saab]

Sway said:

bhstewie said:

Vanden Saab said:

So no law broken yet in which case you will have to agree with me that the post I quoted is in fact utter bks as I pointed out and if the EU get their finger out and agree the administration of the protocol the technical breach of the WA will not happen...

A Government Minister has stood in the HoC today and publicly said that's what the legislation does.

If you don't want people to think you're planning on breaking international law perhaps don't make a statement in the HoC saying that's your plan?

Andrew Neil is pretty well respected and if he's saying it's a stshow it's probably a stshow.

It is indeed a stshow.

Zero argument there.

Now, just try to put yourself into an objective frame of mind...

How, exactly, would you like the government to manage a potential large hole in the operation of our internal market where in order for there not to be a bilateral agreement must occur?

Should we just leave it and hope for the best?

Please note - I have a few times in the last couple of days been critical of both the timing and the comms regarding this, I am far from being a blind supporter.

Not only that but the Vienna convention states this...

Vienna convention said:

“A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.”

Not agreeing a joint position and a way forward on NI would fall into this category without doubt especially as not doing so would be a breach of the treaty by the EU and yet we are only proposing some slight technical changes to allow our internal market to work rather than abandoning the whole thing...

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

As I said earlier, if the WA could not be held to in entirety and in isolation, they shouldn't have bloody signed it.

Oven ready, my arse.

That paints an unfortunate picture.

The WA was an agreement for a mutually beneficial withdrawal. It didn't encompass every possible scenario should one or other party decide to take their ball home. The EU also signed up for it.

[GroundEffect]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

As I said earlier, if the WA could not be held to in entirety and in isolation, they shouldn't have bloody signed it.

Oven ready, my arse.

That paints an unfortunate picture.

The WA was an agreement for a mutually beneficial withdrawal. It didn't encompass every possible scenario should one or other party decide to take their ball home. The EU also signed up for it.

The issues being called out now we're just as visible then but the bluster to get this deal approved got ahead of all involved.

But no, it was a great deal as Mr Johnson said on several occasions.

[Tuna]

GroundEffect said:

The issues being called out now we're just as visible then but the bluster to get this deal approved got ahead of all involved.

But no, it was a great deal as Mr Johnson said on several occasions.

Given the choice between starting actual negotiations with the EU and another four years of immobility, I think it probably was a 'great deal'. The alternative was stagnant, paralysed government.

[Deathmole]

citizensm1th said:

valiant said:

Boris is a !

Well that's a bit strong I may have agreed with compleat fking wazzock but ladies front bottom? Really?

True, a is a useful thing.