Lords reject freedom of movement bill

[Thomas]

Of course I haven't made it up  . The UK passes an act of Parliament superseding the WA in line with Parliamentary sovereignty under section 38 of the WA  act 2020.

The whole reason the internal markets bill is going through your parliament is because without it , westminster cant do trade deals outside the eu for the entire uk because of devolution.

Every major party in scotland except the limp wristed tories have opposed it , and the scot gov have refused legislative consent , so it looks like if westminster gets it passed , its going to the courts.

The uk constitutional crises is only just warming up , and as i have said to you many a time ,while i fully agree democracy should be upheld and england and wales leave the eu , the very idea that the english tories should be striking against devolution and devolved powers that three quarters of the scot electorate voted for is a travesty streetwalker.

Im hoping the courts tear johnson and his party a new arsehole , and im encouraged by the fact lord keen stepped down in large part as to how your government is behaving.

Brexit strategy risks UK 'dictatorship', says ex-president of supreme court

Lord Neuberger condemns internal market bill for exempting some of its powers from legal challenge

The government's Brexit strategy is in danger of driving the UK down a "very slippery slope" towards "dictatorship" or "tyranny", according to a former president of the supreme court.

Addressing an online meeting of lawyers, Lord Neuberger on Wednesday evening condemned the internal market bill, which enables the government to breach international law and exempts some of its powers from legal challenge.


"Once you deprive people of the right to go to court to challenge the government, you are in a dictatorship, you are in a tyranny," Neuberger told the webinar. "The right of litigants to go to court to protect their rights and ensure that the government complies with its legal obligation is fundamental to any system ... You could be going down a very slippery slope."

His comments came as the Scottish parliament at Holyrood voted by 90 votes to 28 against granting legislative consent to the Westminster bill. The Scottish National party, Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat MSPs united to oppose the legislation; only Conservative MSPs supported it.

The vote will not prevent Boris Johnson's government at Westminster from pushing through the internal market bill, but the Scottish constitution secretary, Mike Russell, said the Scottish parliament had "explicitly" and comprehensively rejected it.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/oct/07/brexit-strategy-puts-uk-on-slippery-slope-to-tyranny-lawyers-told

[Streetwalker]

Your second part that the WA would be repudiated, now you just made that up, or if you want you can provide some link to that affect prior to the UK signing the WA. Because if the UK had hinted that it would try pulling out or changing the WA after signing then the EU wouldn't have agreed and there wouldn't have been a agreed WA, there wouldn't have been FTA talks, there wouldn't have been a transition period and the UK would now be seriously up the shitter on WTO.
Johnson can't do anything to the WA, it's a done deal, not unless he wants to open up a serious can of worms.

Of course I haven't made it up  . The UK passes an act of Parliament superseding the WA in line with Parliamentary sovereignty under section 38 of the WA  act 2020. 

[Borchester]

Johnson can't do anything to the WA, it's a done deal, not unless he wants to open up a serious can of worms.

Boris does not want a deal.

He is currently getting a lot of stick for the Chinese flu nonsense and he wants something to make a grand gesture about something or other. So unless the EU promises to make it rain beer and have Barnier kiss BoJo's bum before the world's press, the blond moppet will give Brussels the Agincourt salute and thereby win back the support of the Tory grassroots which is all he really cares about anyway.

[GerryT]

We all know the WA was a croc of shite , rejected on numerous occasions by Parliament and only eventually voted through after a few tweaks by Johnson and assurances given to the eurosceptics in his own party that that it would be superseded by a Free trade agreement or if need be failing agreement be repudiated .

If it was a croc then Johnson shouldn't have signed it, remember "no deal is better than a bad deal"  or is it ?  Johnson may have promised a FTA to the UK domestic audience but that wasn't in his power to grant. Now people should have known that and called him out on it. A UK problem, nothing to do with the EU.
Your second part that the WA would be repudiated, now you just made that up, or if you want you can provide some link to that affect prior to the UK signing the WA. Because if the UK had hinted that it would try pulling out or changing the WA after signing then the EU wouldn't have agreed and there wouldn't have been a agreed WA, there wouldn't have been FTA talks, there wouldn't have been a transition period and the UK would now be seriously up the shitter on WTO.

Johnson is trying to avoid the later scenario in the event of a no deal by making the WA  acceptable to the majority in his party if not the majority of those who voted leave

Johnson can't do anything to the WA, it's a done deal, not unless he wants to open up a serious can of worms.

[Baff]

They have been playing the joker card rather a lot.

I think it might be the only one they have.

[Nick]

I didn't say the bill did anything to the WA, it doesn't have to in order to break the WA, as pointed out a breach of Art5 is the most likely course of action from the EU.

The UK taking a course to introduce legislation which has the primary purpose of over ruling the WA

As no deal looks more and more likely, it's a threat from the UK that it will breach the WA using the bill to break it's commitments regarding NI. That has been openly said by Gove and Johnson, it wasn't even a subtle threat, it was sledge hammer style.
How the UK thinks it can negotiate with the EU and threaten it at the same time is bewildering.

There are 60 billion reasons why the EU wants a deal, all of them a deficit. A large portion of the Italian, French wine market. 15% of the German car industry: That's twice the level of the 2008 crash in a day if they don't deal.

Why you think the EU holds all the cards is beyond me. You are deluded.

[Borchester]

AN unelected body trying to stop an elected body from damaging the UK's international reputation.

And saving Silly Simon's job.

Upon being asked how he intended to punish the Brits for being smarter crooks than their EU counterparts, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, said that he hoped that the bill would have a bumpy ride in the House of Lords.

The Micks, being a good hearted  people and not having a gunboat to send, have let him keep his job.

[Streetwalker]

I didn't say the bill did anything to the WA, it doesn't have to in order to break the WA, as pointed out a breach of Art5 is the most likely course of action from the EU.
As no deal looks more and more likely, it's a threat from the UK that it will breach the WA using the bill to break it's commitments regarding NI. That has been openly said by Gove and Johnson, it wasn't even a subtle threat, it was sledge hammer style.
How the UK thinks it can negotiate with the EU and threaten it at the same time is bewildering.

We all know the WA was a croc of shite , rejected on numerous occasions by Parliament and only eventually voted through after a few tweaks by Johnson and assurances given to the eurosceptics in his own party that that it would be superseded by a Free trade agreement or if need be failing agreement be repudiated .

Johnson is trying to avoid the later scenario in the event of a no deal by making the WA  acceptable to the majority in his party if not the majority of those who voted leave

[GerryT]

The bill does nothing to the WA until triggered, same as that gun in the cabinet.

I didn't say the bill did anything to the WA, it doesn't have to in order to break the WA, as pointed out a breach of Art5 is the most likely course of action from the EU.
As no deal looks more and more likely, it's a threat from the UK that it will breach the WA using the bill to break it's commitments regarding NI. That has been openly said by Gove and Johnson, it wasn't even a subtle threat, it was sledge hammer style.
How the UK thinks it can negotiate with the EU and threaten it at the same time is bewildering.

[Streetwalker]

The bill does nothing to the WA until triggered, same as that gun in the cabinet.

I hope its loaded nick

[Nick]

We'll agree to disagree. But the bill does break the WA, even if it's unintentional as you suggest that doesn't in any way change how the EU will react.

The bill does nothing to the WA until triggered, same as that gun in the cabinet.

[GerryT]

The primary purpose is to protect the UK, nothing to do with breaking the WA agreement.

We'll agree to disagree. But the bill does break the WA, even if it's unintentional as you suggest that doesn't in any way change how the EU will react.

[Nick]

primary purpose of over ruling the WA

Article 5 of the WA covers Good faith, it clearly says neither party will do anything that would jeopardise the agreement. The UK taking a course to introduce legislation which has the primary purpose of over ruling the WA is the clearest example of the UK breaking Article 5.

"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.
This Article is without prejudice to the application of Union law pursuant to this Agreement, in particular the principle of sincere cooperation."

The primary purpose is to protect the UK, nothing to do with breaking the WA agreement.

[GerryT]

It was introduced to stop your glorious leaders from shafting us Gerry.
It's just a shotgun in the gun cabinet, doesn't do anything and isn't illegal.

What your overactive imagination conjures up is irrelevant.

Article 5 of the WA covers Good faith, it clearly says neither party will do anything that would jeopardise the agreement. The UK taking a course to introduce legislation which has the primary purpose of over ruling the WA is the clearest example of the UK breaking Article 5.

"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.
This Article is without prejudice to the application of Union law pursuant to this Agreement, in particular the principle of sincere cooperation."

[Nick]

Your not keeping up Nick, do you not know what's going on ?  what the bill does and why it was introduced.

It was introduced to stop your glorious leaders from shafting us Gerry.
It's just a shotgun in the gun cabinet, doesn't do anything and isn't illegal.

What your overactive imagination conjures up is irrelevant.