Sadly, not my joke 
Good Morning Tuesday 23rd April St Georges Day
To think that London, or anywhere else for that matter, does not belong to any one demographic
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Breaking International Law
(93 Posts)This is a twitter thread by the Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Billed by David Allen Green QC as 'one of the country's greatest constitutional law scholars '
It demolishes each of the justifications so far put out by the government for breaking international law.
Just putting it here so people can access it easily
By my reckoning, the Government has so far attempted in five ways to justify clauses 42 and 43 of the Internal Market Bill, which, if enacted, would allow Ministers to make regulations in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement /…
1. The powers would breach international law but only in a ‘limited and specific’ manner (Brandon Lewis, Northern Ireland Secretary) — but this is not a distinction the law draws: a breach of international law is a breach of international law /…
2. The powers are needed in case the Government needs rapidly to implement safeguards under Art 16 NI Protocol (Lord Keen, Advocate General) — but the clause 42–3 powers bear little relation to the matters with which Article 16 is concerned /…
3. The powers are needed in case the Government rapidly needs to do what Article 62 of the Vienna Convention allows (Lord Keen) — but Article 62 requires a fundamental change of circumstance and permits only withdrawal/termination, not repudiation of individual obligations /…
4. The Withdrawal Agreement is a ‘special’ form of treaty because it presupposes a Future Relationship Agreement, so it’s ok to breach the WA if no FRA materialises (various Ministers) — this is just wrong /…
5. The Internal Market Bill would amount to an ‘acceptable’ rather than an ‘unacceptable’ breach of the rule of law (Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor) — but the law draws no distinction between these two forms of breach /…
So: five attempts to justify clauses 42–3, none of which is satisfactory as a matter of law.
Sixth time lucky?
Joke telling obviously isn’t your forte biba ?
Gas5 microwave whatever
We shall indeed. Have you ever tried to cook a pudding on Gas5 microwave yourself btw?
We shall see eh biba? The proof of the pudding and all that ...
She wanted a Brexit that was do-able- makes sense to me. It would have never been as good as staying in, as we had amazing terms- but certainly better what Johnson cooked up on Gas5 Microwave- and which he even knows it diabolical. Nought David Frost can do about that.
Mrs May was a Remainer so she wanted the softest of Brexits anyway! I’d rather pitch in with Sir David Frost and Boris for a better delivery.
?
@MartinRemains
Sep 18
If the Queen cannot remove an evidently corrupt, incompetent and unfit government, then I am sorry to say, what is the point of the Queen?
We must have a head of state with the power to remove a government and PM from office.
Alliance of European Republican Movements AERM
Sweden Netherlands and U.K. What kind of Republic?
m.youtube.com/c/RepublicCampaign
ERG won’t be happy
So all the bluff from Johnson was as usual nonsense
A £200m contract to implement Brexit checks on goods in the Irish Sea has been won by a consortium of companies led by Japanese company Fujistu.
HMRC announced on Friday that a two-year contract for the new trader support service (TSS) had been awarded to a consortium led by the tech company and its partners, the Customs Clearance Consortium, an organisation run by customs expert Robert Hardy and the Institute of Export and International Trade.
The latter counts among its patrons the former Ulster Unionist party leader Reg Empey, who is listed as one of the organisation’s vice-presidents. Lord Empey said he had no involvement in the bid and his role as patron was entirely honorary.
The winning consortium, which also involves McKinsey consultants, said it was “very pleased to be the successful supplier” of what will be “a free service available to all traders moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and importing goods into Northern Ireland from the rest of the world, which will help them to comply with new requirements under the NI protocol”.
Empey was vehemently opposed to any Brexit deal that involved trade barriers down the Irish Sea but more recently called on cabinet ministers to stop denying their existence in the Brexit deal.
In July, he said the “attempt to hide from the reality is doing no service to business or the general public” as the protocol made clear “there will be a border in the Irish Sea” and these would be implemented on 1 January trade deal or not.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/18/brexit-consortium-fujitsu-irish-sea-contract-northern-ireland
This afternoon in the commons debate
Theresa May: "This is a country that upholds the rule of law. Yet we're being asked to tear up that principle and throw away that value. And why? On the face of it, because the gov't didn't really understand what it was signing up to, when it signed the Withdrawal Agreement."
And the SPS requirements, Ug?
(The tories are aching to get rid of workers' rights, you know; along with the Human Rights Act, and the independent judiciary, and the politically neutral civil service. Oh, and parliamentary scrutiny of legislation... Such larks are in store...)
The UK has better worker’s rights than the EU ever did! Just ask Grandad1943 I’m sure he’ll back me up on that one.
We don’t want a hard border, never did.
Your problem EU - your tariffs to collect - so over to you guys. Betcha any money it’s going to be ‘a light touch’.
?
No snide at all Ursmstongran. The question was genuine, and vital. And no, there is no such technology available- not now, and probably never that the EU will trust. The reason being that we are proposing to have different husbandry and biosafety rules - and not adher to a playing field in a 1000 of ways, including wages, workers' rights, and so much more. And are very likely to be linked to other Deals that will allow the import of meat and other products that will not be considered safe or to EU standards, from the US and elsewhere- that could then find its way into the EU via NI/I. No technology can make up for that - and technology would have to be based on mutual trust. Trust which is being anhiliated as we speak by Johnson's behaviour.
Your trust in technology is quite endearing Urmstongran. A bit like your trust in a successful Brexit. Both, sadly, unfounded.
C). I wonder why no-one has found Ug's genius proposal to be a satisfactory solution?
It just means that with the technology available nowadays the lightest of touches for trade & tariffs could be applied - mostly electronically.
A) I'm not sure that this technology exists
B) How do you 'light touch with technology' SPS inspections (which have to be undertaken close to the border)?
No need to be snide biba.
It just means that with the technology available nowadays the lightest of touches for trade & tariffs could be applied - mostly electronically.
The good people of the island of Ireland can be reassured by the EU that this ‘needs’ to be done, not by the UK. No hard border. Just a soft one to collect monies due to the EU before goods pass into the RoI. ‘Trusted traders’ will enhance the smooth running of the set up.
The UK won’t need to get involved. Politicians can reassure and calm the electorate.
Obviously those in thrall to Johnson and his government will excuse him anything. The fact that the oven ready WA deal is anything but, and that they want to change what they wrote themselves and signed up to is evident and can’t be denied. It has incompetence written all over it.
Plain fact ''*there are only 2 solutions left: break the GFA, or keep following EU rules.'*
if you have another solution (and experts have been looking for years, without finding one) - please tell us, and tell the Government too.
Could you explain your statement Urmstongran- as this makes no sense here. Thanks.
In reality, of course, no one is threatening the GFA and nor is anyone proposing a hard border in Ireland.
(If you doubt that, just ask who would build it.)
I don't think that Grandad's opinion is going to change the facts. But perhaps it's a 'men know better than women' thing...
I always suspected that Boris intended to stuff the oven-ready deal at some later date!
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »