General Brexit discussion thread

[Sheepy]

obviously the WA cannot reference the IMB directly as the WA was negotiated and ratified before the IMB was even a glint in Johnson's eye.

The fact the IMB is npt mentioned by name is no argument against it not breaking the WA.

You asked for a clause and here it is

Article 4 of the WA (which the UK agreed to)

Note the UK agreed that it would disapply domestic provisions that are incompatible with the WA (which includes the NI Protocol which has Article 10)

Now the IMB has Sections 43 to 45

Section 43 explicitly says

Section 45 then says


note the underlined bit of s42 means the SoS can "disapply" (ignore) Art10 of the NI protocol which we explicitly agreed not to do in the WA and s45 says to do that even if doing so is incompatible with international or domestic law (ie they break it) it doesn't matter.

By modifying domestic law so that a legal or natural person can no longer directly rely on the WA the UK breaks it's agreement.

The argument as to whether or not the UK uses those powers is irrelevant because the mere existence of those powers breaks the WA

All that doesn't make me responsible for every Schizophrenic on the internet Bedbug, they just seem to be getting worse and more confused by the day.

[BeElBeeBub]

Could you reference the persistent clause Gerry?

obviously the WA cannot reference the IMB directly as the WA was negotiated and ratified before the IMB was even a glint in Johnson's eye.

The fact the IMB is npt mentioned by name is no argument against it not breaking the WA.

You asked for a clause and here it is

Article 4 of the WA (which the UK agreed to)

1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce
in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its
Member States.
Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in
this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.
2. The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its
judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic
primary legislation.

Note the UK agreed that it would disapply domestic provisions that are incompatible with the WA (which includes the NI Protocol which has Article 10)

Now the IMB has Sections 43 to 45

Section 43 explicitly says

43 Regulations about Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purposes of
domestic law in connection with Article 10 of the Northern Ireland Protocol
(State aid).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may (among other things) make provision—
(a) about the interpretation of Article 10;
(b) disapplying, or modifying the effect of, Article 10.

Section 45 then says

45 Further provision related to sections 42 and 43 etc
(1) The following have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or
domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent—

note the underlined bit of s42 means the SoS can "disapply" (ignore) Art10 of the NI protocol which we explicitly agreed not to do in the WA and s45 says to do that even if doing so is incompatible with international or domestic law (ie they break it) it doesn't matter.

By modifying domestic law so that a legal or natural person can no longer directly rely on the WA the UK breaks it's agreement.

The argument as to whether or not the UK uses those powers is irrelevant because the mere existence of those powers breaks the WA

[Sheepy]

We want another election, because we might win this one and go back to praying at the EU altar, no you won't you will get slaughtered just like every other time, you always want another election when you think you have swayed public opinion. But,but Joe Biden,

[Sheepy]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/record-breaking-majority-of-brits-think-brexit-was-a-bad-idea-poll-finds/17/11/

LOL the London economic. Scraping the barrel somewhat.

[Borg Refinery]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/record-breaking-majority-of-brits-think-brexit-was-a-bad-idea-poll-finds/17/11/

[GerryT]

It was my post to you, 845

Yes. The UK signed a legal contract and Article 5 of that contract says:

The Union and the United Kingdom shall, in full mutual respect and good faith, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from this Agreement. They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement.[/i]

The UK will break this article of the agreement if it were to suggest and try implement the IMB. By merely trying to pass the IMB and nothing else, that breaches the above. The UK is NOT taking all appropriate measures which COULD stand in the way of the objectives of the WA.

Do you agree ?

[Nick]

You've posted some nonsense

I think you've got the gold medal for that one Gerry.

[Nick]

You've posted some nonsense but this is your best. You think unless the WA mentions the IMB then the IMB doesn't break the WA.
Did you read that clause, can't you work out for yourself how the IMB breaches that clause. Its 1+1 nick  even you can keep up.

Could you reference the persistent clause Gerry?

[GerryT]

No I don't agree.

Does the WA reference an IMB anywhere? No it doesn't so how is the IMB breaking any rule?

You've posted some nonsense but this is your best. You think unless the WA mentions the IMB then the IMB doesn't break the WA.
Did you read that clause, can't you work out for yourself how the IMB breaches that clause. Its 1+1 nick  even you can keep up.

[GerryT]

Of course not.
The UK intentral market is enshrined in the treaty you say the internal market bill breaches.
How can this be so, since the EU will be doing everything in their power to uphold the UK internal market, in line with their agreements. Since they agree the UK has primacy in UK law, how can a bill enshrining the WA treaty in UK law be a breach of it?

It can't.

The problem is the EU have alreadty proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they act in ba faith.
They have already broken this agrement multipletimes.
And they are famous for breaking their agreements,
Their bad trade record globally counts against them.

Negatively affects how people tryng to make trade agreements with them respond.

All those things you try an claim is true of us, are not.
But they are true of you.

Is baff short for baffling. The IMB gives the uk power to unilaterally rewrite parts or all of the WA. if that's not a clear indication of an action that "could jeopardise" the WA then what is.
How has the EU broken this treaty multiple times.

[Nick]

Do you agree ?

No I don't agree.

Does the WA reference an IMB anywhere? No it doesn't so how is the IMB breaking any rule?

[Baff]

Yes. The UK signed a legal contract and Article 5 of that contract says:

The Union and the United Kingdom shall, in full mutual respect and good faith, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from this Agreement. They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement.[/i]

The UK will break this article of the agreement if it were to suggest and try implement the IMB. By merely trying to pass the IMB and nothing else, that breaches the above. The UK is NOT taking all appropriate measures which COULD stand in the way of the objectives of the WA.

Do you agree ?

Of course not.
The UK intentral market is enshrined in the treaty you say the internal market bill breaches.
How can this be so, since the EU will be doing everything in their power to uphold the UK internal market, in line with their agreements. Since they agree the UK has primacy in UK law, how can a bill enshrining the WA treaty in UK law be a breach of it?

It can't.

The problem is the EU have alreadty proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they act in ba faith.
They have already broken this agrement multipletimes.
And they are famous for breaking their agreements,
Their bad trade record globally counts against them.

Negatively affects how people tryng to make trade agreements with them respond.

All those things you try an claim is true of us, are not.
But they are true of you.

[Borg Refinery]

It is very easy to deny that you speak for Boris Johnson's inner thoughts.
Especially when you portray them as being things that would only advantage his rivals.

This story began in Brussels.
It was the comment of an EU politician at odds with Boris.
Not Boris.

It is a Europhile fantasy that has been doing the rounds on the internet.
If you can persuade yourself otherwise, well done.

These people are just so weak.
Imagine coming from a country where you needed to feel that a big superpower was going to come to your rescue.
Where you felt that no one could possibly truely seek independence.
That you either have to be part of the EU or the US.

That Biden is going to rescue you from the nasty Brits who refused to support you any longer.
Force them to do your bidding.
Because you can't force them yourself and you so badly want to.

So much weakness. Glad to dissasocciate myself from these people. So very glad.

Disassociative personality disorder is real also. 

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about, it's an inapplicable crazed rant, kind of reminds me of this -

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k2lSAxw75co

😋

[GerryT]

Isn't that the whole structure of law? You're only guilty if you actually do something? It isn't an argument, it's a fact.
You are also dragging the US into this when ultimately there will be a deal between the UK and EU, the bill is there to merely stop the EU from hog-tying us.

Yes. The UK signed a legal contract and Article 5 of that contract says:

The Union and the United Kingdom shall, in full mutual respect and good faith, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from this Agreement. They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement.[/i]

The UK will break this article of the agreement if it were to suggest and try implement the IMB. By merely trying to pass the IMB and nothing else, that breaches the above. The UK is NOT taking all appropriate measures which COULD stand in the way of the objectives of the WA.

Do you agree ?

[Baff]

(shrugs)

If you say so Baff, but it's like denying white is white.

It is very easy to deny that you speak for Boris Johnson's inner thoughts.
Especially when you portray them as being things that would only advantage his rivals.

This story began in Brussels.
It was the comment of an EU politician at odds with Boris.
Not Boris.

It is a Europhile fantasy that has been doing the rounds on the internet.
If you can persuade yourself otherwise, well done.

These people are just so weak.
Imagine coming from a country where you needed to feel that a big superpower was going to come to your rescue.
Where you felt that no one could possibly truely seek independence.
That you either have to be part of the EU or the US.

That Biden is going to rescue you from the nasty Brits who refused to support you any longer.
Force them to do your bidding.
Because you can't force them yourself and you so badly want to.

So much weakness. Glad to dissasocciate myself from these people. So very glad.