FT: Bojo to override WA

[GerryT]

God forbid this is the way of a new UK.

Unfortunately it seems the Cummings way is to cause havoc and in the aftermath of confusion makes changes that would be very difficult to do through conventional means, such as this proposed legislation change.
But has the damage been doe=ne, is there a way back. This issue is been spoken about the world, even if Johnson dumps his alteration the fact that he suggested doing such a thing, other nations might now feel this current UK govt can't be trusted. Has the damage all ready been done.

[GerryT]

BJ was elected to get us out of the EU, part of that was the WA which was the terms whereby the EU would agree to let us go

Not really. The UK could have triggered Art50, pulled down the shutters and have no further discussion with the EU, serve the agreed 2 yrs and your out. In fact it was Lord Kerr who drafted the Art50 protocol, so originally a UK design. There are no "terms" to leave the EU, you can just walk away (after the 2 yr period, call it a "cooling off" period). Having a WA allows doe the state leaving to settle any outstanding matters, and settle issues. The WA is not the vehicle for setting a future trade deal, that's a separate issue.

without any more claims on us as I understand it, but also within that was a tacit agreement to talk about a trade deal. I kind of remember all sorts of barriers being put up that we had to agree to before they would even consider talking about a deal. It seems it was a con. No doubt someone will correct me if wrong.

The tacit agreement you refer to would be the "political declaration" which outlined an agreed direction both parties would want the future trade deal to take.
There were zero barriers put up. The EU and UK agreed the way forward, first agree the WA which would have included any financial settlement, when this was agreed then move to a FTA discussion. The logic being if the UK and EU couldn't agree on a settlement of affairs then there would be no future trade deal other than going to WTO, and any outstanding issue would have then been resolved via an agreed resolution procedure.

We have been going around the houses all year off and on. The EU have said from the outset that it was too little time, bearing in mind that the longer they keep us talking the longer they keep us paying - whether we have seats in parliament or no. Too little time to crank the handle on the EU ad nauseum because they don't make decisions until time runs out. As long as they were persuaded that we would wait, the longer they would digress and the more obstacles would be put in our way. Why? Because deep down they are desperate not to lose us. They would be in clover if suddenly we changed our minds and re-applied. Perhaps Covid was their last hope.

First the UK would continue to pay during the 2yr "cooling off" period after triggering Art50, that makes sense as the UK would still benefit from membership, I hope you would agree that's reasonable. The UK then could have left with zero payments, but the UK asked for an extension and then a further extension, deciding to remain in the EU, so yes you continue the payments but that was totally a UK decision. Then you wanted a transition period, where you have effective membership with free trade/travel/services etc... so yes you pay again. But this was also a UK decision, you weren't held at gunpoint or threatened, you decided that was what you wanted.
I do get your point that you feel the EU delayed everything, but I would say that's exactly what the UK side did. David Davis as the lead negotiator spend 4 hours in meetings with Barnier, who complained at the delaying tactics of the UK. There are many examples like this, but this is a true reflection of what the UK was at. Davis preferred t spend his time travelling around Europe talking to Merkel and MAcron thinking he was going to go over Barniers head. This was a masterclass by Davis in been a total idiot.
https://www.ft.com/content/9e3aacf0-7b9c-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

It has to come to an end. The EU has to face facts that they can't keep us so close that we aren't actually free. I am happy to be friends with the EU and all it's members but only for as long as it fits in with our hopes and dreams. To allow them to hold us back as non-competitors in order to save the protection racket that they have devised within the EU castle walls is nonsense and traitorous. When we finally cut the strings we need to be completely free like any other country in the world. Just because we were once a member why should they expect to keep us subservient to their whims?

It's the UK that needs to understand, you don't get what you ask for, crying "bully" when you don't is childish. The fact is the EU would like a very close relationship, but Barnier handed the UK from memory 5 types of trade deal that went from very close relations to very basic relations
EEA countries (Norway) - Switzerland - Ukraine - Turkey - Canada
BUt the UK wanted to cherry pick, it said it wanted Canada but said it would be Canada+++. This would have a bit of Norway, some of Switzerland, bits of Ukraine and a dash of Turkey. BUt in return it only wanted the alignment Canada would give. This was called the cherry picking "have cake and eat it" mantra. IT was never going to happen, and never will.
Your are not being held subservient, or held to our whims. Go the way of USA/Australia and some other countries and go on WTO terms with the EU, your a sovereign state so make a decision. The EU castle is our decision, there's no gun being held to your head, if you want a very basic trade deal we will tell you our terms, if you don't like it we will either accept you say no or we will lower our terms, that's negotiating. But the UK is not going to get a deal that changes what the EU is or a deal that's better than what we give others. This concept will become a recurring trend when you look to do deals with other countries. But there is one basic concept not mentioned, which might seem obvious, in trade talks if there is a big difference in size the larger party is a rule giver and the smaller a rule taker.

[Streetwalker]

Treaties can be ended in various ways , declaration of war might be a bit extreme but Boris could swing the ''The treaty becomes injurious to the state '' or maybe ''incompatible with the charter of the united nations '' that being the right to self determination .

Just our luck though it will be ''dissolution by giving notice '' time scale to be agreed .


https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/08/termination-of-treaties.html

Take your pick  option 10 for me

[Good old]

only refers to the people's will as  expressed by parliaments making law in the people's name.

Once more it would seem he wants to get his fingers burnt, in his present dealings, The mans a disgrace .

When Johnson took the revised WA to the people and secured the Dec GE he did so on a manifest of that agreement. This was signed in Jan and brexit was finally competed. The political declaration, a separate written document gave in general terms the items that were to be discussed and agreed in a future trade deal.

If Johnson does try to bring in legislation tomorrow, even if unsuccessful, isn't that a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the countries sovereignty ?

He now represents the will of the people, in so much as he has been asked to lead the country. We have to  accept the country knew what it was doing when it made that possible for him.
If parliament supports him in his latest machinations , they by his own ministers words will  be party to breaking international law , because that is what they contemplate.  Our country that has prided its self for its adherence to the rule of law , will never be listened to again if it should pontificate on such matters.
So yes there is a betrayal here , a betrayal of our renown  for honest dealing , integrity. Our unwavering belief in the rule of law.  As I said the man and his minions are a disgrace. Sad to have to say but it should come as no surprise , this Cummings inspired muppet , has tried to ignore the law of his own land on occasion, we knew what he is in that regard. We knew his main man found rules ,law even  easy to ignore, and that Boris, would support him. God forbid this is the way of a new UK.

What if it's a bad law? What if it's a law that was written in haste by those with an agenda that this country no longer wants? Should we stick to it no matter what?  Where is the court that will allow its alteration?

The statute books are full to bursting with law that could be deemed bad for one reason or another or by one person or another,. As with all of those  not everyone would consider this particular law a bad law.
It's obvious this law has become an inconvenient law for Boris, and Co. But not only that , it's alteration, will lead him directly to being a breaker of international law, something to be supremely proud of  I do not think.
I don't care that we leave the EU , not doing it with good grace and a reputation unsullied bothers me enormously .
We leave because we wanted to , the outcomes are ours to bare , do it with something resembling honourable behaviour.

[Baff]

The WA is shit.

And the whole world knows it.
It's a national embarrasment to have even signed it, duress or not.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
End of an era one hopes.

[T00ts]

only refers to the people's will as  expressed by parliaments making law in the people's name.

Once more it would seem he wants to get his fingers burnt, in his present dealings, The mans a disgrace .

When Johnson took the revised WA to the people and secured the Dec GE he did so on a manifest of that agreement. This was signed in Jan and brexit was finally competed. The political declaration, a separate written document gave in general terms the items that were to be discussed and agreed in a future trade deal.

If Johnson does try to bring in legislation tomorrow, even if unsuccessful, isn't that a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the countries sovereignty ?

He now represents the will of the people, in so much as he has been asked to lead the country. We have to  accept the country knew what it was doing when it made that possible for him.
If parliament supports him in his latest machinations , they by his own ministers words will  be party to breaking international law , because that is what they contemplate.  Our country that has prided its self for its adherence to the rule of law , will never be listened to again if it should pontificate on such matters.
So yes there is a betrayal here , a betrayal of our renown  for honest dealing , integrity. Our unwavering belief in the rule of law.  As I said the man and his minions are a disgrace. Sad to have to say but it should come as no surprise , this Cummings inspired muppet , has tried to ignore the law of his own land on occasion, we knew what he is in that regard. We knew his main man found rules ,law even  easy to ignore, and that Boris, would support him. God forbid this is the way of a new UK.

What if it's a bad law? What if it's a law that was written in haste by those with an agenda that this country no longer wants? Should we stick to it no matter what?  Where is the court that will allow its alteration?

[Good old]

only refers to the people's will as  expressed by parliaments making law in the people's name.

Once more it would seem he wants to get his fingers burnt, in his present dealings, The mans a disgrace .

When Johnson took the revised WA to the people and secured the Dec GE he did so on a manifest of that agreement. This was signed in Jan and brexit was finally competed. The political declaration, a separate written document gave in general terms the items that were to be discussed and agreed in a future trade deal.

If Johnson does try to bring in legislation tomorrow, even if unsuccessful, isn't that a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the countries sovereignty ?

He now represents the will of the people, in so much as he has been asked to lead the country. We have to  accept the country knew what it was doing when it made that possible for him.
If parliament supports him in his latest machinations , they by his own ministers words will  be party to breaking international law , because that is what they contemplate.  Our country that has prided its self for its adherence to the rule of law , will never be listened to again if it should pontificate on such matters.
So yes there is a betrayal here , a betrayal of our renown  for honest dealing , integrity. Our unwavering belief in the rule of law.  As I said the man and his minions are a disgrace. Sad to have to say but it should come as no surprise , this Cummings inspired muppet , has tried to ignore the law of his own land on occasion, we knew what he is in that regard. We knew his main man found rules ,law even  easy to ignore, and that Boris, would support him. God forbid this is the way of a new UK.

[T00ts]

only refers to the people's will as  expressed by parliaments making law in the people's name.

Once more it would seem he wants to get his fingers burnt, in his present dealings, The mans a disgrace .

When Johnson took the revised WA to the people and secured the Dec GE he did so on a manifest of that agreement. This was signed in Jan and brexit was finally competed. The political declaration, a separate written document gave in general terms the items that were to be discussed and agreed in a future trade deal.

If Johnson does try to bring in legislation tomorrow, even if unsuccessful, isn't that a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the countries sovereignty ?

BJ was elected to get us out of the EU, part of that was the WA which was the terms whereby the EU would agree to let us go    without any more claims on us as I understand it, but also within that was a tacit agreement to talk about a trade deal. I kind of remember all sorts of barriers being put up that we had to agree to before they would even consider talking about a deal. It seems it was a con. No doubt someone will correct me if wrong.

We have been going around the houses all year off and on. The EU have said from the outset that it was too little time, bearing in mind that the longer they keep us talking the longer they keep us paying - whether we have seats in parliament or no. Too little time to crank the handle on the EU ad nauseum because they don't make decisions until time runs out. As long as they were persuaded that we would wait, the longer they would digress and the more obstacles would be put in our way. Why? Because deep down they are desperate not to lose us. They would be in clover if suddenly we changed our minds and re-applied. Perhaps Covid was their last hope.

It has to come to an end. The EU has to face facts that they can't keep us so close that we aren't actually free. I am happy to be friends with the EU and all it's members but only for as long as it fits in with our hopes and dreams. To allow them to hold us back as non-competitors in order to save the protection racket that they have devised within the EU castle walls is nonsense and traitorous. When we finally cut the strings we need to be completely free like any other country in the world. Just because we were once a member why should they expect to keep us subservient to their whims?

[Borg Refinery]

Gerry, it's no good, people voted for Bojo for whatever silly reason. I feel you're banging your head on a brick wall there.

All Ireland can do as you said is reorientate and shield itself from our collossal act of seppuku.

[GerryT]

only refers to the people's will as  expressed by parliaments making law in the people's name.

Once more it would seem he wants to get his fingers burnt, in his present dealings, The mans a disgrace .

When Johnson took the revised WA to the people and secured the Dec GE he did so on a manifest of that agreement. This was signed in Jan and brexit was finally competed. The political declaration, a separate written document gave in general terms the items that were to be discussed and agreed in a future trade deal.

If Johnson does try to bring in legislation tomorrow, even if unsuccessful, isn't that a betrayal of "the will of the people" and the countries sovereignty ?

[Good old]

Yours  is the waffle mate, as the Cooper ruling , had no effect on the judgements given in the supreme courts regarding , relative rights ,of the Executive, and parliament it's self.  In regard to how the brexit, issue was being dealt with, and of course the the use of prorogue to Prevent debate.

I never said the cooper ruling had any effect on how parliament was dealing with brexit.

You originally hinted parliamentery process was under criticism uniquely during the brexit issue. I pointed out i had been a critic for some time.

you then span that as though i was criticising democracy ( which i will deal with in a minute)

I quiet believe  you and many on here have been critical of their democracy for some time. But rarely has the executive wrongly  put such pressure on the long established process of our sovereign parliament. Very worrying for some of us.

...and i then picked you up on yet more of your pish about "sovereign parliament " , mentioning the famous cooper ruling on how parliamentary sovereignty is a distinctly "english" principle , not a uk principle as it doesnt apply in Scots constitutional law.

I wasnt making any comment on how badly parliament behaved during the brexit debate.

So lets recap the "waffle" you constantly talk.

You insinuated a while back johnson was responsible for the alleged poor "uk" response to covid 19 , i pointed out this was waffle and johnson only controls the english health system and response to covid.

You then insinuated the tories were responsible for poor numbers of "british police" , i pointed out the tory government isnt in control of "british police" , and that the scottish police have more officers per head of popualtion than england. More waffle.

You then start waffling on about "sovereignty of parliament" meaning your parliament can do as it pleases like it tried during the brexit debate.

I pointed out sovereignty of parliament in an english not uk principle.

You mention proroguing of parliament and make out johnson is a tin pot dictator for by passing your sovereign parliament.

...but seem quite happy when your "sovereign parliament" acts the tin pot dictator and by passes a referendum of the people.

Talk about you political morals being all over the place.

All these antiquated medieval english processes are all well and good ,but you forget the fact we are no longer living in the days of tin pot medieval english kings and their divine right  and absolute sovereignty.

Your "parliamentary sovereignty" forgot one thing.

It had to answer to the will of the english people last december , with all too predictable consequences.

Quiet honestly Thomas, I don't know what your point ever was . As the will of a sovereign people is only ever  expressed in law made in parliament. The fact that the people are described as sovereign in the wording of Coopers ruling , only refers to the people's will as  expressed by parliaments making law in the people's name. That law can not be ignored  by parliament to suit any attempt to creat a different set of circumstances. There never was a principle in England. that parliament could ride roughshod over law .And Cooper merely affirmed that applied to Scots law and could therefore be applied in that particular case.
Yes , there was a price for maintaining the sovereignty of parliament , but it was not the advent of referendum being used to undermine parliamentary ability to maintain its sovereignty .
A General election helped settle the situation , so the people got their way  but parliament won because it's GEs that control Parliament ,not referendum.
Doesn't stop Boris, trying though does it? Once more it would seem he wants to get his fingers burnt, in his present dealings, The mans a disgrace .

[Thomas]

Yours  is the waffle mate, as the Cooper ruling , had no effect on the judgements given in the supreme courts regarding , relative rights ,of the Executive, and parliament it's self.  In regard to how the brexit, issue was being dealt with, and of course the the use of prorogue to Prevent debate.

I never said the cooper ruling had any effect on how parliament was dealing with brexit.

You originally hinted parliamentery process was under criticism uniquely during the brexit issue. I pointed out i had been a critic for some time.

you then span that as though i was criticising democracy ( which i will deal with in a minute)

I quiet believe  you and many on here have been critical of their democracy for some time. But rarely has the executive wrongly  put such pressure on the long established process of our sovereign parliament. Very worrying for some of us.

...and i then picked you up on yet more of your pish about "sovereign parliament " , mentioning the famous cooper ruling on how parliamentary sovereignty is a distinctly "english" principle , not a uk principle as it doesnt apply in Scots constitutional law.

I wasnt making any comment on how badly parliament behaved during the brexit debate.

So lets recap the "waffle" you constantly talk.

You insinuated a while back johnson was responsible for the alleged poor "uk" response to covid 19 , i pointed out this was waffle and johnson only controls the english health system and response to covid.

You then insinuated the tories were responsible for poor numbers of "british police" , i pointed out the tory government isnt in control of "british police" , and that the scottish police have more officers per head of popualtion than england. More waffle.

You then start waffling on about "sovereignty of parliament" meaning your parliament can do as it pleases like it tried during the brexit debate.

I pointed out sovereignty of parliament in an english not uk principle.

You mention proroguing of parliament and make out johnson is a tin pot dictator for by passing your sovereign parliament.

...but seem quite happy when your "sovereign parliament" acts the tin pot dictator and by passes a referendum of the people.

Talk about you political morals being all over the place.

All these antiquated medieval english processes are all well and good ,but you forget the fact we are no longer living in the days of tin pot medieval english kings and their divine right  and absolute sovereignty.

Your "parliamentary sovereignty" forgot one thing.

It had to answer to the will of the english people last december , with all too predictable consequences.

[papasmurf]

During the GE. Your beloved Tory's kicked everyone's arse.

I hate the Tories with a passion you will never understand. But if you think Britain is united you must have you head stuck up your fundamental orifice.

[GerryT]

So Johnson sells the oven ready deal to the people and wins a GE, he then re-writes the WA, so he tells us and then he signs an internationally agreed treaty. Done and Dusted, in January this year. The UK have left the EU and there's celebrations. The UK is out but decides to keep the ship in harbour  this year while it get's itself in order and looks to agree a future trade deal. The EU agrees to this.
Now, the oven ready deal looks more like a cheese&fish sambo washed down with water. It also becomes clear that the UK signed the WA and will be putting up a border within it's country. "Holy crap" says Johnson, when the great unwashed find out the shit storm will start, "I didn't know that was going to happen" the hopeless idiot realises. His next great idea is to use some stupid local legislation to squirm around the actual essence of the WA, he really is a self serving convicted liar.
The WA dealt with the leaving of the EU, not the future relationship. The WA wasn't contingent on securing a trade deal, as Johnson himself says an Australian type trade deal would be great, well we all know Australia doesn't have a trade deal with the EU, so Johnson is happy with that.

So what does this mean if true, will Johnson break the treaty he signed earlier this yr, lets assume he does. First the EU will know the UK can't be trusted with this Govt, not just Johnson but all the MP's. No point in trying to agree a trade deal because the UK will just break their word again and again. It's the new UK, a banana republic. It gets worse, the USA congress has come out to say if the UK breaks the WA and impacts the GFA it will suspend all trade talks with the UK, remember the USA were a party to the GFA, they see it as a agreement that stopped a war, an agreement the USA was an integral part in brokering.
What will other countries think ? can the UK be a reliable partner to an agreement, or are they now a nation that does what it wants, when it wants. "Taking back control" of sovereignty that you never lost and then doing whats proposed will make most countries think twice about what to believe the UK says.

[papasmurf]

Relevant to thread:-

https://news.sky.com/story/jonathan-jones-head-of-governments-legal-department-quits-over-pms-reported-brexit-plan-whitehall-sources-say-12066488

Tuesday 8 September 2020 12:36, UK


BREAKING 
Jonathan Jones: Head of government's legal department quits over PM's reported Brexit plan, Whitehall sources say

Boris Johnson's reported bid to override parts of his Brexit deal has been dealt a blow, after the head of the government legal department quit.

Jonathan Jones resigned following concerns that Downing Street may be trying to undermine parts of the EU withdrawal agreement, according to Whitehall sources.

The move means six top civil servants have now stood down this year, including the heads of several departments and the cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill.