StefanAVFC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 There are legal challenges ahead I presume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Does anyone know if Labour will be opposing the Internal Market Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Does anyone know if Labour will be opposing the Internal Market Bill? I’m guessing it’s rock and a hard place for them isn’t it? On one hand I’m sure they’re foaming at the mouth to oppose it but you just know that Boris and the other scumbags will spin it as Labour actively seeking to cause problems against ‘wot the country voted’....again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Party of law and order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted September 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted September 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: I’m guessing it’s rock and a hard place for them isn’t it? On one hand I’m sure they’re foaming at the mouth to oppose it but you just know that Boris and the other scumbags will spin it as Labour actively seeking to cause problems against ‘wot the country voted’....again. Time to grow a backbone and believe in something rather than just hoping they’ll inherit Westminster by default in 4 years time. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Time to grow a backbone and believe in something rather than just hoping they’ll inherit Westminster by default in 4 years time. Not hard. Just position yourself as the side following international law and the Tories are the law breakers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Not hard. Just position yourself as the side following international law and the Tories are the law breakers. You would think it was that simple wouldn’t you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: You would think it was that simple wouldn’t you? I actually think it is that simple, I don't see how Starmer, a former AG, can position the party any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 I think he will, and it is a simple position to take. And it will almost certainly be exploited and as @bannedfromHandV, used as an example of those metropolitan elite liberal bastards in the Labour party undermining Brexit. Breaking the law? It's foreign law. Out means out, etc. Enemies of the people, and all that jazz. British law for British rocket polishers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 We are quite literally a rogue state at this point. All to appease a bunch of back bench Tory words removed and racist knuckledraggers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 10, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 2 hours ago, snowychap said: ^Further to that: I wonder which of two things has happened 1. Johnson just bluffed and winged it with his statement 9 months ago when in NI, about Northern Ireland and no customs border, because he didn't know or care - and all this stuff is basically a means of hiding and covering up for that mistake and lack of knowledge. 2. It was always their plan to deliberately lie about it, to lie to the EU, to have no intention of adhering to the contract they signed. I'm leaning towards the second, which is the even more damning of the two possibilities. it's not that they've just started acting in bad faith, but that they have been doing so from the moment Johnson took over. I know prior to that they were lying and cheating, but the unlawful proroguing was the sign, I think, that they were prepared not just to lie, but to ignore and break the law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, blandy said: I'm leaning towards the second I'm with you on that. I think it (reneging on any agreement) was always on the cards and has been hinted at since Rees-Mogg suggested it whilst still a backbencher (i.e. during the May negotiations). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 10, 2020 Author Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: Rees-Mogg suggested it whilst still a backbencher I didn't know that. It's surprising, what with him being a known stickler for conforming to rules and so on (or at least self proclaimed scholar of parliamentary processes and wotnot). It's like a mental disease they've got. Parasites in their brains or something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, blandy said: I didn't know that. It's surprising, what with him being a known stickler for conforming to rules and so on (or at least self proclaimed scholar of parliamentary processes and wotnot). I'll try and find it. On Mogg, his sham facade of 'decency', supposed good manners, &c. should be well and truly exposed by now for the nonsense that it always was. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 @blandy This is a post of mine from last year: On 12/03/2019 at 13:30, snowychap said: It might go largely unnoticed but it shouldn't: Rees-Mogg has just brought up the idea about a future Parliament (which can't be bound by the current one) [he may have said government] resiling from any obligations concerning the backstop. Why would anyone trust a country which has people in its Parliament even suggesting that as something for consideration especially if that person and/or those around him appear to have such an important position in the current decision-making process and may well have much more in any future government? It was certainly in some minds that they could just rip up the bits they didn't like. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Hansard: Quote Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that much of what is being said is political as well as legal. Will he therefore set out for the House what penalties might fall upon this country if a future Parliament, which obviously cannot be bound, were to decide to resile from the commitments under the backstop? The Attorney General Well, my hon. Friend will know that as an Attorney General I simply could not give countenance to the idea that this country would break its international legal obligations. As I have pointed out to the House, there is a right for the United Kingdom to terminate this agreement. If fundamental circumstances change, in the view of the United Kingdom, it would attempt to resolve the matter within the joint committee and it would attempt to resolve it politically, but if, ultimately, with the sovereign right of this House and of the British Government at the time, the United Kingdom took the view that those fundamental circumstances had indeed changed, it would have an undoubted legal right to withdrawal from any treaty. Let us be clear about these kinds of absolute interpretations of black-letter text. A sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interests or, to put it a different way, if fundamental circumstances have changed. I would say that apart from that, of course this country could resile from its commitments, but it would be unwise and it would not be in the tradition of this country to do so. In those circumstances, it is perfectly true that the only remedies the Union would have would be to take countermeasures, and no doubt it would pollute the atmosphere for fruitful relationships between us, which is precisely why this country will never do it, and neither would the European Union. The question was about the backstop under the previous agreement (which Mogg was against) but the thought process behind it and the response (which one would surely imagine must continue to be the view of the former AG) equally well apply to the NI Protocol and any other areas of this WA (on which Mogg campaigned, the implementation of which he voted for, &c.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, snowychap said: Erm, how does someone who resigned two days ago over this very matter, send out a letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, bickster said: Erm, how does someone who resigned two days ago over this very matter, send out a letter? The thread continues to say that he resigned... But they're letting him serve his three month notice. Governed by clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted September 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: The thread continues to say that he resigned... But they're letting him serve his three month notice. Governed by clowns. "Letting him", that sounds insane. Surely standard practice would be gardening leave not making someone sit behind a desk and send letters with some sort of gun to his head. He's resigned but is sending letters out in his name that he knows to be an incorrect position (legally speaking) so much so it's what he actually resigned over. This. is. INSANE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts