The Brexit Thread

[Eggchaser]

It would appear every lawyer in the Government not confident of Heavy Mob protection is quitting to avoid being up before the Bar Council/SRA.

Buckland and Braverman are gutless cunts and a disgrace to professional integrity. Lawyers may get a bad rep but the amount of hoops I, a very small time solicitor in an old but essentially irrelevant firm, jump through on a daily basis to ensure I conduct myself in accordance with the rules I signed up to when I qualified compared to the naked shitheelery of those two pisses me off and makes me wonder why I bother.

[Snake Plissken]

I thought that Braverman wasn’t actually qualified for the job anyway?

[ursus arctos]

She may well not be, but she is still a member of the bar and of Middle Temple (and the New York Bar too, it appears)

[Eggchaser]

She wasn't a QC when she got the job, which has never happened before. She was, however, a toadie and a willing stooge, and that's all the qualifications needed.

[Snake Plissken]

The QC thing was what I was thinking of.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Braverman is a barrister contemporary of a former Otfer , and a bunch of other people who have actually shared a courtroom with her, and the comments about her on the football prediction whatsapp group that he runs, when she was appointed were interesting. "More avant garde performance artist than lawyer". "You would be better off defending yourself, even if you only spoke arabic". "Would likely have gotten in trouble for the nature of her courtroom performances, if she wasn't so clearly disturbed and detached from reality." These performances could best be described as shambolic, confused, chaotic, self-defeating and deranged." and "Quite possibly trying to destroy the Immigration appeals system from within." and "Very hard to listen to in court, because you're too busy wondering who were all the various gatekeepers along the way who were asleep on the job that allowed someone this unhinged become a barrister."


you know, more or less exactly what you'd expect to hear about a member of this govt.

[Diable Rouge]

Guardian reporting that merely tabling the IM Bill is actionable, because the WA Article 5 on "good faith" would be breached.

[ursus arctos]

The article makes clear that the memo is a bit more nuanced than the headline, but it still makes perfect sense to me.

[Ginger Yellow]

The legal opinion goes on to say that should the legislation actually be adopted it would be in “clear breach of substantive provisions of the protocol” in waiving any export procedures or formalities on the trade of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and in restricting the application of EU state-aid rules in the case of Northern Ireland.

“Once the bill is adopted (as proposed), the commission may initiate infringement proceedings against the UK for breach of the good faith obligations,” the EU lawyers write. “Even before the bill is adopted, it could be defendable to bring infringement proceedings on the same grounds.”

The lawyers add: “Given the length of the pre-litigation phase, it is unlikely that the case against the UK can be brought to the court before the end of the year.

“However, infringement procedures for facts occurred before the end of the transition period can be brought to the court during four years after the end of the transition.”

I'm curious about this part, given the ECJ's usual reluctance to opine on theoretical harms. AIUI, the bill does not itself waive export procedures or formalities, it "merely" allows ministers to do so. The state aid point is slightly different, but I still don't know whether it would rise to the level of a live dispute. Given that pretty much by definition there won't be any actual waivers of export formalities before the end of the transition, I'm not sure if this would count as "facts occurred [sic] before the end of the transition period".

[ursus arctos]

The core idea is that the mere tabling of the bill violates the good faith obligation, this making the bringing of a claim "defendable". My reading is that is not a recommendation that one be brought.

[Ginger Yellow]

I suppose the thresholds may be different for infringement proceedings. I was thinking mainly of referrals by domestic courts.

[ursus arctos]

My recollection (it has been a while) is that they are in such proceedings brought by an EU institution itself.

[Eggchaser]

Blimey, even Nosferatu Howard is having a crack at the Government.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

Blimey, even Nosferatu Howard is having a crack at the Government.

...while Theresa May is allowing it to be rumoured that she won't vote for the bill.

[Diable Rouge]

https://twitter.com/MarosSefcovic/status/1304067212253298688

[Diable Rouge]

One for our lawyer-in-residence to analyse.

[ursus arctos]

Seems spot on to me

[Diable Rouge]

All the while, I see the euro has risen from 91p to 93p just over the course of the day.

[Ginger Yellow]

The Government’s argument is that Parliament’s legal capacity in domestic law to make any law it wants somehow makes it acceptable, as a matter of international law, for the UK to renege on its treaty obligations. But the latter does not follow from the former.

I'm not sure that's true, at least as far as the Legal Position is concerned. It goes out of its way not to make any statement about compliance with international law, other than a mealy mouthed statement to the effect (though not an actual affirmation) that "We are too acting in good faith". It just pivots from that statement to talk exclusively (at least explicitly) about domestic law and the constitution. I suspect it's worded in a way designed to make people draw the inference it's talking about what is acceptable in international law, but that's not what the plain language says.

All that said I absolutely agree with "The Government’s statement is risible because it utterly misses the central point of concern."

[Eggchaser]

One for our lawyer-in-residence to analyse.

My dissertation was more coherent than that and I gave up, drew some sort of conclusion to finish it like I was shooting an injured racehorse and slapped it in. It got the 3rd it deserved, although my other marks dragged me up to a 2:2.

More eminent legal minds than mine have been unkind to that word salad, as will the verdict of history.

[ursus arctos]

GY, I think that Elliott is saying that that position is the only possible logical underpinning of the Government's position, rather than something they assert explicitly

[Diable Rouge]

Gove stating that "with regret", the Bill will not be withdrawn.

[Nefertiti2]

So EU going to take Johnson to court for being a measly skunk

meanwhile there’s another fight brewing

https://twitter.com/profmarkelliott/status/1304116539147399174?s=21

can only see this escalating- like Brexit itself there’s no political capital in calming things down or reaching difficult agreement

[Diable Rouge]

Meanwhile, some Tories want a parliamentary veto on the Bill, which wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, given Johnson's majority:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1304103835674304512

[ursus arctos]

So EU going to take Johnson to court for being a measly skunk

Has this been decided? I've looked at sources in four languages and not seen anything.