Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
the attorney general is now in an interesting position given today's statements in the house along with the lord chancellor who both have sworn oaths to up hold the rule of law.
the ministerial code also mandates compliance with the law including international law as clarified by the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, Sir Terence Etherton, master of the rolls, and Lord Justice Hamblen who found in 2018 that "despite the change in the wording of the ministerial code, the “overarching” duty to comply with the law included international law and treaty obligations even though these words were no longer explicitly included."
so huge bluff on the part of government to force the eu to the table ?
upcoming U turn as the reality of doing what they propose emerges?
or riding roughshod through the ministerial code and a future date in the supreme court?
the ministerial code also mandates compliance with the law including international law as clarified by the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, Sir Terence Etherton, master of the rolls, and Lord Justice Hamblen who found in 2018 that "despite the change in the wording of the ministerial code, the “overarching” duty to comply with the law included international law and treaty obligations even though these words were no longer explicitly included."
so huge bluff on the part of government to force the eu to the table ?
upcoming U turn as the reality of doing what they propose emerges?
or riding roughshod through the ministerial code and a future date in the supreme court?
markyb_lcy said:
citizensm1th said:
or riding roughshod through the ministerial code and a future date in the supreme court?
This one, I reckon.Supreme Court will of course uphold the law, then they will u-turn.
turbobloke said:
Deathmole said:
citizensm1th said:
valiant said:
Boris is a 
!
Well that's a bit strong I may have agreed with compleat f!king wazzock but ladies front bottom? Really? is a useful thing.
I was just wondering if this thread was moving as fast as the Trump one or if one of the covid threads is hitting the top speeds
citizensm1th said:
do you think the N.I. Secretary spoke out of line today as i think it is a crazy admission to make in the commons
I reckon he phrased it about as badly as any politician in history. If he'd said something warm and fluffy about the Good Friday Agreement and the need to avoid anything that looked like a hard border in NI regardless of whether the EU gave us a deal or not, he'd probably have got away with that. Not least because it bears at least some resemblance to the truth: the NI Protocol was drafted on the assumption that we'd have an FTA in place. A couple of other points: we don't even have a Bill before Parliament yet, so as of this evening the Govt hasn't broken any laws. And even if the Bill does overrule some clauses in the NI Protocol, those will only come into effect if we leave without a deal on 31st December. So no law-breaking this side of Christmas whatever happens. All the same, I agree it's not a strong look for the Govt, but what do you do when two sets of treaty obligations collide? Of course it might just be a cunning ploy to force the EU to concentrate harder: "Give us a deal, or we'll entangle you in Northern Ireland politics."
It all comes down to what's in the bill. It's a public debate, so having wound everyone up tight, this could go one of two ways.
Ultimately, we're not "breaking laws" unless parliament votes to do so, and (if what we've heard so far is true) we cannot reach an agreement with the EU.
Can't say I'm convinced by either side yet - again, we don't know what's in the bill, but that doesn't make the screaming objections sound particularly grounded.
Ultimately, we're not "breaking laws" unless parliament votes to do so, and (if what we've heard so far is true) we cannot reach an agreement with the EU.
Can't say I'm convinced by either side yet - again, we don't know what's in the bill, but that doesn't make the screaming objections sound particularly grounded.
citizensm1th said:
markyb_lcy said:
citizensm1th said:
or riding roughshod through the ministerial code and a future date in the supreme court?
This one, I reckon.Supreme Court will of course uphold the law, then they will u-turn.
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?
Yep. They rammed through without proper scrutiny a terrible deal that they are now regretting. 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?
Simple as that.
citizensm1th said:
the attorney general is now in an interesting position given today's statements in the house along with the lord chancellor who both have sworn oaths to up hold the rule of law.
the ministerial code also mandates compliance with the law including international law as clarified by the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, Sir Terence Etherton, master of the rolls, and Lord Justice Hamblen who found in 2018 that "despite the change in the wording of the ministerial code, the “overarching” duty to comply with the law included international law and treaty obligations even though these words were no longer explicitly included."
so huge bluff on the part of government to force the eu to the table ?
No, because ultimately our law has primacy over treaty law as I understand it. We are legally able to amend treaties. the ministerial code also mandates compliance with the law including international law as clarified by the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, Sir Terence Etherton, master of the rolls, and Lord Justice Hamblen who found in 2018 that "despite the change in the wording of the ministerial code, the “overarching” duty to comply with the law included international law and treaty obligations even though these words were no longer explicitly included."
so huge bluff on the part of government to force the eu to the table ?
There is a question of trust and good faith, but if there is a conflict that needs to be resolved, it is not illegal to do so.
At least as I understand it.
Sadly, it's immensely in the interests of those that oppose the government's agenda to talk up this issue, so I'm suspicious that the usual people are the ones who are shouting from the rooftops. Cry wolf too many times and it's hard to trust you.
markyb_lcy said:
citizensm1th said:
or riding roughshod through the ministerial code and a future date in the supreme court?
This one, I reckon.Supreme Court will of course uphold the law, then they will u-turn.
IforB said:
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?
Yep. They rammed through without proper scrutiny a terrible deal that they are now regretting. 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?
Simple as that.
They also signed it...
So, how is it possible for RoI to "uphold the law" if the necessary agreements to do so aren't made bilaterally?
markyb_lcy said:
citizensm1th said:
markyb_lcy said:
citizensm1th said:
or riding roughshod through the ministerial code and a future date in the supreme court?
This one, I reckon.Supreme Court will of course uphold the law, then they will u-turn.
Tuna said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie 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.I can't keep up.
Andrew Neil makes no mention of them either.
I won't delete the original message or this'll make no sense. Hold my hands up to that one.
TooLateForAName said:
If this is an attempt to distract everyone by being reasonable then it might just work.
Lol. I'll try to make up for it.On the other thread, the Sun is carrying a piece that says the ambiguous wording of the WA was abused by Bariner, who had threatened in effect to block food exports from the UK to NI unless we agreed to a deal.
If this is true, the issue of negotiating in good faith, and being trustworthy would be entirely one for the EU to answer to. I expect excuses and condemnation in equal measure in 3... 2... 1...
Tuna said:
TooLateForAName said:
If this is an attempt to distract everyone by being reasonable then it might just work.
Lol. I'll try to make up for it.On the other thread, the Sun is carrying a piece that says the ambiguous wording of the WA was abused by Bariner, who had threatened in effect to block food exports from the UK to NI unless we agreed to a deal.
If this is true, the issue of negotiating in good faith, and being trustworthy would be entirely one for the EU to answer to. I expect excuses and condemnation in equal measure in 3... 2... 1...
Tuna said:
Lol. I'll try to make up for it.
On the other thread, the Sun is carrying a piece that says the ambiguous wording of the WA was abused by Bariner, who had threatened in effect to block food exports from the UK to NI unless we agreed to a deal.
If this is true, the issue of negotiating in good faith, and being trustworthy would be entirely one for the EU to answer to. I expect excuses and condemnation in equal measure in 3... 2... 1...
Hmm ... "...came after what they saw as veiled threats from Michel Barnier’s team..."On the other thread, the Sun is carrying a piece that says the ambiguous wording of the WA was abused by Bariner, who had threatened in effect to block food exports from the UK to NI unless we agreed to a deal.
If this is true, the issue of negotiating in good faith, and being trustworthy would be entirely one for the EU to answer to. I expect excuses and condemnation in equal measure in 3... 2... 1...
You couldn't get any more woolly than that if you were in a barn full of sheep.
Tuna said:
TooLateForAName said:
If this is an attempt to distract everyone by being reasonable then it might just work.
Lol. I'll try to make up for it.On the other thread, the Sun is carrying a piece that says the ambiguous wording of the WA was abused by Bariner, who had threatened in effect to block food exports from the UK to NI unless we agreed to a deal.
If this is true, the issue of negotiating in good faith, and being trustworthy would be entirely one for the EU to answer to. I expect excuses and condemnation in equal measure in 3... 2... 1...
I’m hesitant to believe much of what The Sun print without alternative corroboration.
If true then that sure doesn’t look good, but both sides (and their aligned press) are slinging mud.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff