Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Brexit Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tories lie. Shocker. They have always been lying liars that lie.

    Comment


      Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
      Forget (c), look at (g). No rule, law or court ruling, anywhere ever.

      Comment


        Yeah, I saw (g) and wondered why they bothered with (a) thru (f)

        Comment


          "we had our fingers crossed"

          Comment


            Interesting resignation letter from a Welsh Tory, who considers the Bill to be an existential threat to the Union:

            https://twitter.com/DavidMeldingMS/status/1303695663172136961

            Comment


              All the bollocks the government spouted last Autumn about "no hard border" in Ireland was a barefaced lie?

              Comment


                The utter contempt they are showingthat they can and will get away with more or less anything means we should merge this whole thread with the one about steps to fascism in the UK

                Comment


                  The Precious Union will be lucky to survive 2021. I doubt Mehole expected that The Republican Party might have to put their 32 county rhetoric into action on his watch, and any sane Scotch Tories left must be raging privately.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                    The Precious Union will be lucky to survive 2021.
                    Every cloud, and all that.

                    Comment


                      Of course a certain Gallic MP is believed to be he who must not be named.

                      Comment


                        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.

                        Comment


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

                          Comment


                            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)

                            Comment


                              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.

                              Comment


                                The QC thing was what I was thinking of.

                                Comment


                                  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.
                                  Last edited by The Awesome Berbaslug!!!; 10-09-2020, 11:25.

                                  Comment


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

                                    Comment


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

                                      Comment



                                        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".

                                        Comment


                                          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.

                                          Comment


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

                                            Comment


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

                                              Comment


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

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Eggchaser View Post
                                                  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.

                                                  Comment


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

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X