Can I break the law....

[Suff]

On thinking a little further, this might have other connotations and I don't want to discuss them unti that is played out or not.

[Workingman]

Ooh, cryptic - connotations. Implications?

Let us not forget that Bojo signed and sold the WA as his own and a "win" in order to get elected in the GE. He must have known what was in it and thought it a good read, mustn't he?

Not only is he now reneging on International Law he signed off on, he is also selling the numpties who voted for him down the river.

Implications: The Blue Wall turning red again. The new Red Wall MPs demanding clarity on 'levelling up'. Letters to the 1922 chair Sir Graham Brady. An internal vote of no confidence in Mr Mop Head.

They all sound good to me.

[Workingman]

Get this, from the horse's mouth - the Bill: "this law can override any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgement or decision of the Europe Court or of any other court or tribunal".

Our government has gone rogue. Ermächtigungsgesetz 1933 anyone?

We must hope that there are enough sensible Tories in parliament to help apply the brakes. Yes, I know that "sensible" and "Tories" in the same sentence doesn't make sense, but we have to kneel and pray.

[Workingman]

Hi there, again, has anyone got a list of the UK's FTAs sans WTO rules with other countries effective from 01/01/2021?

Just asking for 68m people.

[Suff]

Useful read, but I think the reader is injecting their own way of thinking into the mix.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... ver-brexit

There is another possibility and it may play out.

Does Johnson want a fta with the EU? I don't think so any more. It has become increasingly obvious that the EU wants a deal on their own terms and are not willing to accept we want one on our own terms, at which point the horse trading begins.

The EU wants capitulation before negotiation. Which means the price of a deal will always be too high.

This bill serves notice that capitulation is not happening. In fact it serves notice that the capitulation of 2019 is going to be rolled back.

This has several interesting connotations. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out. The courts might even play right into the government's hands.

[Suff]

Not quite as stupid as everyone is saying then.

The Bill breaches the withdrawal agreement by saying that the Northern Ireland secretary could decide that article 10 will “not be interpreted in accordance with case law of the European court” or “in accordance with any legislative act of the EU”. This prevents a party taking an action to the European Court of Justice if they believe there has been an illegal state subsidy.

The Bill also deprives individuals of their ability to challenge a decision by the UK, which violates not just the protocol but article four of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement.

This is a very far stretch from the blathering so far. It has been very carefully thought out. I haven't the skill or time to read further into the whole document, but there is one article that says the transition agreement expires on 31 Dec 2020. This bill comes into effect Jan 1st 2021.

I'm sure it will keep lawyers arguing for decades, but that last point leaves no room for EU decisions on UK state aid in Ireland to be applied in the UK. They can, as far as I understand, go to the WTO and whinge, but that is already referred to in the protocol and annexes.

It is, however, a very useful bill if you want certain things to happen but don't want to initiate them.

[Suff]

And another excellent summary which addresses some of the motivations behind the bill.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/0 ... nal-storm/

Including

It is also possible that, in line with some judicial comments in the Privacy International case, a court might be prepared to say that Parliament cannot entirely oust judicial review — thus seeking to address the weaponisation of parliamentary sovereignty head on by denying it. That, however, would be a very unwise step for a court to take, particularly at the present time — not least because it would precipitate precisely the fight with the judiciary for which the Government has been spoiling since it lost the prorogation case last year.

However, everyone is getting ahead of themselves. This is a bill to be passed through parliament. Not legislation on the statute books. It has to pass both houses first.

If, however, it passes parliament, there a a whole swathe of people who might want to take a long hard look at how they view the UK and that's not just people from the outside.

[Workingman]

Spin it every which way but it remains illegal.

Who says?

Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

That's who says.

Oh, and the two linked articles, which for some strange reason are being used to try to defend the indefensible.

Let me try to clear things up with a couple of quotes from the second article:

The Internal Market Bill thus sets the scene for a perfect constitutional storm: a confrontation with the EU, a stand-off with the courts, a fundamental attack on the rule of law, and a diminution of the UK’s commitment to the rules-based international order.

and

The Lord Chancellor, whose role as a constitutional guardian of the rule of law is recognised by statute, must surely now consider his position.

And one other thing, it does not have to be put before the UK courts, the EU could take it elsewhere and put it before a wider international audience where even those living in caves can see what the UK, well Dim and Dom, are up to.

[Suff]

And the EU has risen to the bait and demanded we remove the proposed bill before it has passed parliament.

Threatening legal action.

I'm sure they could find a court, somewhere, which would find talking about breaking a treaty illegal. Not one I would like to be subject to.

Also, lost in the noise, is that this bill, so I read, is designed to go into effect in 2021.

This bill is a a tool. The buzzer has been pressed and the dogs are salivating. It has Cummings written all over it and those who are shouting loudest would do well to remember that.

Passing a bill does not break international law. USING the bill would do so, but passing it would not.

There needs to be a lot more thought and a lot less talk, but when has that ever happened in this process?

[Suff]

People might wish to read where the EU chooses to breach their ow international treaties in favour of the internal market.

https://amp.ft.com/content/8c0a3bc3-f82 ... 0d3f96fe21

Expect to hear more about it.