UK Politics: Johnsons Hoaxy Yurt North of Hadrian's Wall

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

Correct.

In order to really overcome the virus, you would need testing on this scale (whilst simultaneously effectively blocking entry to the UK, or at least testing every single person entering the country). There seems to be "extreme" scepticism that it's possible, as you need many times the number of people currently qualified to carry out tests.

It's also quite an invasive procedure, and I imagine like most civilised countries you need consent from people to carry out the procedure. I can imagine many millions of people not giving consent. 

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's also quite an invasive procedure, and I imagine like most civilised countries you need consent from people to carry out the procedure. I can imagine many millions of people not giving consent. 

I think one of the hopes is for a saliva-based test that would be less unpleasant. However, as far as I know none of those tests have yet been approved as being accurate enough.

[The Anti-Targ]

So, is this apparent violation of the Sewell convention by the Internal Market Bill as serious as this video suggests?

Come up with a solution to deal with the Northern Ireland border problem and piss off Wales and Scotland at the same time. Unintended consequences, borne of ignorance and naivete? 

In the same video it says there is a decent chance the House of Lords won't let it through anyway. Given what was stated above about the role of the HoL, what is the person in this video imagining they can do to actually stop it rather than just slow it down?

[Werthead]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, is this apparent violation of the Sewell convention by the Internal Market Bill as serious as this video suggests?

Come up with a solution to deal with the Northern Ireland border problem and piss off Wales and Scotland at the same time. Unintended consequences, borne of ignorance and naivete? 

In the same video it says there is a decent chance the House of Lords won't let it through anyway. Given what was stated above about the role of the HoL, what is the person in this video imagining they can do to actually stop it rather than just slow it down?

Under the 1911 Parliament Act (amended 1949) the Lords can slow the bill and prevent it from being passed until 12 months later. The government has to employ the Act to force it through, which it doesn't like doing because it challenges the conventions under which Parliament operates (allowing the Lords to have oversight over the Commons and provide feedback).

The reason the Lords have more power is because I believe the law would have to be passed before the Withdrawal Agreement period ends, which is in three and a half months, so delaying it a year in this case buggers up the government's timetable. They would need to amend the bill to get it passed, effectively removing the contentious bits.

Surprisingly, ERG members came out this morning alarmed at the bill, because that they can see Johnson buggering up the withdrawal process when they were on the cusp of getting a reasonable deal with the EU where the EU has already given some ground and they can declare victory (the appetite for a total No-Deal scenario seems to have dramatically diminished since the COVID-related economic downturn began).

[Werthead]

The EU threatens Britain with trade sanctions (or at least opens the doors to Britain being hit with sanctions), which is quite a thing.

[The Anti-Targ]

The other convention re the House of Lords I just heard was that the House of Lords does not piss around with laws that derive from the govt's election manifesto, since those laws have an electoral mandate, though as we no doubt note, not an actual majority of the electorate, necessarily. But in the case of the Internal Markets Bill, the international law violating bits are explicitly contrary to the the govts election manifesto, which is to pass the Withdrawal Agreement as the foundation of a most excellent Brexit. So one argument goes that the House of Lords no only has the conventional freedom stand directly in the way of the bill, but is actually duty bound to stand in the way because it is acting in opposition to the Conservative party election manifesto. Now that's an interesting notion.

[Chaircat Meow]

Japan trade deal looks like it will go through. Many outlets pedalling this as new trade with Japan but it is not. It does seem a basically successful rollover of the existing deal we have with Japan via the EU, while differing in respects that don't make it better or worse overall, which is not be sniffed at but all it amounts to is a successful bit of damage limitation. 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Japan trade deal looks like it will go through. Many outlets pedalling this as new trade with Japan but it is not. It does seem a basically successful rollover of the existing deal we have with Japan via the EU, while differing in respects that don't make it better or worse overall, which is not be sniffed at but all it amounts to is a successful bit of damage limitation. 

It's significant because we were repeatedly told that these kind of trade deals wouldn't be possible to achieve in this timescale, and more importantly that the UK would be walked over without the powerful EU to back them. 

In a week where things look bad, this news should be a cause for optimism. 

[Spockydog]

Let's just hope that the Japanese don't renege on the deal, in a specific and limited way.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It's significant because we were repeatedly told that these kind of trade deals wouldn't be possible to achieve in this timescale, and more importantly that the UK would be walked over without the powerful EU to back them. 

In a week where things look bad, this news should be a cause for optimism. 

I was wondering if you were still here.

How do you feel about reneging on international treaties and government ministers saying 'we are planning to break the law?'

I mean, I sort of do it see it both ways on the Irish protocol really . But once you've signed you've got to carry through.

[Chaircat Meow]

Apparently Bozzer has just told Tory MPs 'it is "necessary" to row back on aspects of a Brexit agreement - and in the process breach international law - in order to "stop a foreign power from breaking up our country". Hard to see how he backs down now - no deal it is. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Apparently Bozzer has just told Tory MPs 'it is "necessary" to row back on aspects of a Brexit agreement - and in the process breach international law - in order to "stop a foreign power from breaking up our country". Hard to see how he backs down now - no deal it is. 

Well, wasn't no deal the most probable outcome for quite a while anyway? Any deal would be worse than membership (pretty much by definition). So him cutting out NI was the last chance to get any deal that made some logical sense, but would get him killed politcally domestically. Just the dumbfuckery with signing a treaty in order to break it was a bit surprising.

I mean, the argument about the foreign power braeking up the country. D'uh. That was the deal he wanted, which May decided not to pursue, because of exactly that reason. No Primeminister could ever sign up to that. I mean, I almost feel kinda bad for her. She must really feel a bit like the victim of an elaborate prank, where any moment now somebody shows up with a hidden camera.

But hey, your old party can still decide, it'd rather keep the countries reputation intact and oust Johnson.

[Derfel Cadarn]

What happened to the ‘oven-ready’ deal? 
I assume they turned up with a gas oven in a place with no gas...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

35 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

What happened to the ‘oven-ready’ deal? 
I assume they turned up with a gas oven in a place with no gas...

More like with a gas oven that has a leak and is about to blow up the kitchen.

[kiko]

I'm not sure how no deal can stop North Ireland being a problem. They would still have to find a way around the Good Friday agreement. I'm sure nobody would be mad enough to tear that up. UK or some of its successor states would all of a sudden live in a world with a lot of hostile powers on both sides of the Atlantic.

[The Anti-Targ]

I'm assuming EU will have to set up border checks on the NI land border, or they will have to impose sanctions on the UK, and leave the border open.

[ants]

4 hours ago, kiko said:

I'm not sure how no deal can stop North Ireland being a problem. They would still have to find a way around the Good Friday agreement. I'm sure nobody would be mad enough to tear that up. UK or some of its successor states would all of a sudden live in a world with a lot of hostile powers on both sides of the Atlantic.

I looked this up.  Under the withdrawal agreement, if there is no trade deal, NI becomes effectively part of the EU for manufacturing and agriculture goods, and there is a hard (trade) border between NI and Scotland/Wales/England.  So the GFA would be met as far as no hard land border.  Of course, the unionists would have to be pretty pissed.  But fundamentally, if you were willing to accept the break-up of the UK to get Brexit, it was always a viable option.

This all seems incredible.  I'm really not sure what the hell Boris is thinking.  Do the Tories just think the EU is going to roll over and take anything?

[ants]

11 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It's significant because we were repeatedly told that these kind of trade deals wouldn't be possible to achieve in this timescale, and more importantly that the UK would be walked over without the powerful EU to back them. 

In a week where things look bad, this news should be a cause for optimism. 

Um, I think you'll find people said the UK wouldn't be able to do all the replacement deals in a reasonable timeframe.  Which still looks true.  

[mormont]

12 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Apparently Bozzer has just told Tory MPs 'it is "necessary" to row back on aspects of a Brexit agreement - and in the process breach international law - in order to "stop a foreign power from breaking up our country". Hard to see how he backs down now - no deal it is. 

He's having the Churchill delusions again.

This sort of rhetoric, as arousing as it may be to Johnson and his friends in the party sexually, is clearly just rhetoric. Johnson himself, after all, enthusiastically signed up to the idea of breaking up the country when it was politically advantageous to do so, and he'll fold again. He likes to bluster and bloviate but he's a poor negotiator with no cards to play, and he knows it. This is theatre.

[The Anti-Targ]

18 hours ago, ants said:

I looked this up.  Under the withdrawal agreement, if there is no trade deal, NI becomes effectively part of the EU for manufacturing and agriculture goods, and there is a hard (trade) border between NI and Scotland/Wales/England.  So the GFA would be met as far as no hard land border.  Of course, the unionists would have to be pretty pissed.  But fundamentally, if you were willing to accept the break-up of the UK to get Brexit, it was always a viable option.

This all seems incredible.  I'm really not sure what the hell Boris is thinking.  Do the Tories just think the EU is going to roll over and take anything?

The problem is, I assume, that as important to the GFA is free movement of people, and right to work for Irelanders(?) either side of the line. That surely disappears with no deal, at least free movement, since then it becomes a backdoor to mainland UK for other EU citizens.

If no deal puts a trade border between NI and mainland UK, then doesn't that basically impose exactly what the internal markets bill intends to prevent?