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

[kiko]

10 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What the actual fuck?

I hope the link works. Whoever had the UK Goverment trying to pass legislation to break the WA (international treaty/international law) they signed up to a year ago on their crackpot prediction list.

Congratulations, you won the cake, and you can eat it. This is not gonna end well.

Does that really surprise anyone? I had assumed that Alex agreed on anything because he knew that he wouldn't care later anyway. He (probably rightly) assumes that he wouldn't be held accountable for it. Worked like that for all his life. But let's see if he will hit a wall this time. My money is on no.

[Mosi Mynn]

It looks like Keir Starmer might have to mention the B word tomorrow.  He's been deftly avoiding it since the election - now is probably the time to let rip.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 9/7/2020 at 9:10 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What the actual fuck?

I hope the link works. Whoever had the UK Goverment trying to pass legislation to break the WA (international treaty/international law) they signed up to a year ago on their crackpot prediction list.

Congratulations, you won the cake, and you can eat it. This is not gonna end well.

You're being a bit charitable. The WA was signed into by Boris Johnson on 24 January 2020. It feels like a year ago with everything that's gone on. But it wasn't.

It did indeed herald a new chapter. Probably not one most people were hoping for.

US Congress seems to have fired a warning shot. Any pissing about with the Northern Irish Border means no trade deal with Uncle Sam. At least that's what one Congressman has been quoted as saying.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You're being a bit charitable. The WA was signed into by Boris Johnson on 24 January 2020. It feels like a year ago with everything that's gone on. But it wasn't.

Yes, but they haven't passed the legislation to mess with the Irish border, yet. The most generous reading is, they are trying to put pressure on the EU, in case of a nodeal scenario on January first 2021. So that would be around a year. I know, I am still being generous in the sense, it would've been eleven months and not a whole year. But if you insist on being particular...

[BigFatCoward]

They really are the most inept bunch of fuckwits. How utterly embarrassing. 

[Chaircat Meow]

Looks like all the threats to defy the law in October of last year. Provokes outrage in more educated quarters but plays well down the boozer in Barnsley and helps soften the blow when the treaty is actually done and the UK hits its own trade for nothing sensible in return. 

edit: OK, Barnsley Central is actually Labour but BP were just over 3,000 votes short of taking it. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

More curious, I am not sure he can actually get that legislation passed.

It looks like even a good soldier for the conservative party like May might be balking and voting against it. Admitted, he has quite a large majority, but that has the potential to be entertaining.

[The Anti-Targ]

I doubt there is going to be a problem whipping enough votes to pass it. Some people like May might cross the floor and end their career in parliament as an independant. I'm guessing May won't be running in the next election. But I assume there aren't enough retiring MPs* to defeat any bill, no matter how unconscionable.

ETA *with a conscience.

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

They really are the most inept bunch of fuckwits. How utterly embarrassing. 

Even by the standards of recent events a government minister admitting that they are intending to break the law but only in a 'limited and specific way' is quite something.

[The Anti-Targ]

Well then.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/jonathan-jones-resignation-over-brexit-law-breaking-met-with-dismay

Quote

Friends and former colleagues of the government lawyer Sir Jonathan Jones said his resignation suggested he had been put in an intolerable position, with a cabinet minister admitting the government intended to break the law.

Jones resigned on Tuesday, giving no reason in his departure email to colleagues, but Whitehall sources and former colleagues said he had clashed with the attorney general, Suella Braverman, over the government’s intention to override parts of the withdrawal agreement.

Not much more to be said about how serious this is I guess.

I heard the last time the chief legal adviser (not sure what the official title is for this job) was in 2003 when the person in that position at the time had serious concerns over the international legality of the Iraq war that Tony Blair and co were about to use false pretenses to start. I would say the Iraq war was more morally bankrupt by a long way than this Brexit shit, but the Brexit shit is more provable in court. So it could wind up being a lot more damaging to the UK.

It is unfathomable that a sitting senior politician can openly admit to intent to break international law. But a lot of people do not believe in the legitimacy of international law, so they really don't care if their govt pisses all over it. But those people really don't understand the very real consequences of doing that. They also don't understand that a shit load of things they [claim] to care about, like borders and exclusive fishing waters, are established and protected by international law. 

[ants]

On 9/8/2020 at 2:36 AM, Werthead said:

Basically the governments wants to introduce legislation that will violate the withdrawal agreement and will make it impossible to strike a new trade deal with the EU. In particular, it undermines the contingencies signed to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland.

Thanks.

I'm trying to remember, if there is no agreement and its WTO rules, what is the go on the Irish border?  Does NI become aligned with the UK or the EU?  A hard border in Ireland or one in the sea? 

[kiko]

I assume a lot of people yearn for the times when British fishing grounds were protected not by some laws but by the Royal Navy. So, pre Cod Wars. 

[The Anti-Targ]

44 minutes ago, ants said:

Thanks.

I'm trying to remember, if there is no agreement and its WTO rules, what is the go on the Irish border?  Does NI become aligned with the UK or the EU?  A hard border in Ireland or one in the sea? 

I think there is potentially a way to manage this. The UK can say it doesn't really care what comes into the UK from Europe. It can simply declare all products that can be legally traded within the EU can also legally enter the UK, regardless of the port of entry. The Uk can do this by unilaterally recognising EU standards as equivalent to UK standards, and this would meet WTO requirements, arguably. Thus no incoming goods border anywhere between the UK and EU. Then for outgoing goods it can declare that on the UK mainland the only checks that are needed are for goods intended for an EU destination, and for Northern Ireland, goods processed in Northern Ireland must meet EU standards. Thus no need for a NI border for movement of goods in either direction.

It does leave a big hole though. mainland UK goods can be intended for NI (and since there is no documentation needed to declare this intent no one can be accused of any fraud), but suddenly once in NI someone can decide they want to send the goods to Ireland, and the rest of Europe. No checks or documentation going from mainland UK to NI, and no checks or documentation going from NI to Ireland, so so one will ever know.  So it would be a massive trust exercise that people won't abuse this hole. The EU won't be able to abide this hole, so they will have to implement checks on the NI/Ireland border. Therefore it is the mean old EU putting the hard border in, the UK is not. I do wonder what this means for the GFA, since if the UK is not implementing border controls does that mean the GFA remains intact?

Possibly the EU would not put in place border checks, and so would only be left with sanctions on the UK for leaving the EU vulnerable to entry of goods that do not meet EU standards.

[Werthead]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It does leave a big hole though. mainland UK goods can be intended for NI (and since there is no documentation needed to declare this intent no one can be accused of any fraud), but suddenly once in NI someone can decide they want to send the goods to Ireland, and the rest of Europe. No checks or documentation going from mainland UK to NI, and no checks or documentation going from NI to Ireland, so so one will ever know.  So it would be a massive trust exercise that people won't abuse this hole. The EU won't be able to abide this hole, so they will have to implement checks on the NI/Ireland border. Therefore it is the mean old EU putting the hard border in, the UK is not. I do wonder what this means for the GFA, since if the UK is not implementing border controls does that mean the GFA remains intact?

No, the UK would still be creating a situation where the Good Friday Agreement is violated, and the US Congress (the guarantors of the GFA) have said they would interpret this as a breach, with ramifications for any future US-UK trade deal as well.

Lots of people today quoting Thatcher's speech about the UK never breaking any international treaty because to do so would impugn the trustworthiness and reliability of the UK in international opinion (ha) which is one of the UK's greatest strengths. So lots of modern Conservatives are basically violating the tenets of Thatcherism by both saying fuck it to international obligations and also wanting to massively increase state aid to businesses.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

No, the UK would still be creating a situation where the Good Friday Agreement is violated, and the US Congress (the guarantors of the GFA) have said they would interpret this as a breach, with ramifications for any future US-UK trade deal as well.

Lots of people today quoting Thatcher's speech about the UK never breaking any international treaty because to do so would impugn the trustworthiness and reliability of the UK in international opinion (ha) which is one of the UK's greatest strengths. So lots of modern Conservatives are basically violating the tenets of Thatcherism by both saying fuck it to international obligations and also wanting to massively increase state aid to businesses.

I tried my best to help come up with a way for you not to become a pariah state in 2021, but I guess my best is not good enough. I guess you'll have to rely in enough people in the Conservative party seeing sense and not letting this legislation go through.

Can the house of Lords kill it? I still don't understand their role in passing legislation.

[Chaircat Meow]

I generally like the way Sir Keir is playing this.  It is a pretty sad indictment on the UK that it is wise to avoid making a song and dance about someone standing at the dispatch box saying 'we're breaking the law,' but the competence issue is likely the best bet with the voters.

The worry though is if the men in grey suits do come for Boris in early 2021 and he is bundled off and you have Sunak or Gove capering around instead (which I would prefer, personally) Labour have spent too much time focusing narrowly on Johnson's abilities while failing to point up issues with the Tory party. 

[Werthead]

22 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I tried my best to help come up with a way for you not to become a pariah state in 2021, but I guess my best is not good enough. I guess you'll have to rely in enough people in the Conservative party seeing sense and not letting this legislation go through.

Can the house of Lords kill it? I still don't understand their role in passing legislation.

No, they can delay it and potentially by quite a long time, but not kill it. The House of Lords can send bills back for added scrutiny, but the government can use a law passed in 1911 to overrule the Lords and get a bill passed without their assent.

[The Anti-Targ]

Isn't Gove as much of a numpty as Johnson, just in a different way?

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't Gove as much of a numpty as Johnson, just in a different way?

Well, yeah.  He is currently less insane though, although it maybe a short-term thing. He is more pro-deal at any rate and seems to have taken the problems of Brexit on board to a greater extent than some. Don't get me wrong, Gove is a chimp with a machine gun really but he likes flicking the safety on every now and again, which is more than you get from many of his compatriots .  

I don't know whether Sunak will still be popular when he ceases being the man doling out the furlough money. 

[Werthead]

The government has banned social gatherings of more than 6 people, but are not closing schools, restaurants, pubs or imposing another lockdown. They are looking again at big sporting events, but did agree to let the St. Leger Festival at Doncaster run today. It's not on the same order of magnitude as Cheltenham, but our government does seem to have this weird weakness for letting potential super-spreader events proceed as long as horses are involved.