Can I break the law....

[Suff]

And after all the hype, the Institute for Government explains the bill.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... arket-bill

Which has Very different connotations but also clarifies what I already said. The bill, of itself, does not breach international law. Using the bill, in the case that the UK cannot come to agreement with the EU, does. But then most nations do that when in dispute. Don't they.

Reading the bill clarifies that it is a needed legislation to repatriate the cross UK trade and aid competencies, currently held by the EU, to Westminster. I find it somewhat disingenuous (but not surprising), that devolved governments like Scotland are willing to submit this competency to the EU (in fact go running back to the EU thrusting it at them), insist that the UK government, in which they have far more representation that the EU, does not retain the cross UK rights.

It is clear that the EU, in the scope of NI, is treated in Exactly the same way as the rest of the UK when it comes to UK internal markets.

I can't find any criticism about the institute for government. Therefore I assume they have given a clear and factual summation of the bill and it's chapters.

[Workingman]

A roll-back .

Boris signed an international agreement with a major trade bloc less than a year ago.

An agreement that he owned and that he championed, recommended to the HoC, and announced as "Good for Britain".

He tried to push it through parliament unscrutinised and when that didn't work he called an election specifically so he could get it through parliament and "get Brexit done".

It was the bees' knees of an agreement.....

Now it is a load of crap and we need something else, and illegal something else, and the justifications and excuses for it are bizarre, Monty Pythonesque, even.

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

So why introduce a bill which if used would break international law? Why even threaten to break the law? And why would anyone trust Mr Mop Head not to use it - he has form?

Oh, I get it, the Bill would be placed in a glass fronted red box with a brass hammer on the Cabinet office wall with the legend "Emergency use only" but never to be used. Give us all a break.

Today it appears that the perambulating haystack is caught in a double pincer movement. Remain leaning tories are likely to vote against or abstain, and so are some Brexiters, even some from the ERG - amendments are now being tabled. Then there is the HoL. It can delay this Bill till well past the 1st Jan 2021 to March / April 2021 and the next session of parliament. This begs the question of whether Mop Head will prorogue parliament again and start a new session. If he does he can pass the Bill unhindered by the HoL It must be mighty tempting. The Tories tearing themselves apart over the EU: again!

As for the latest link. It is an explainer from the fairly neutral think tank the IfG and it neither supports nor criticises the Bill. It simply outlines the clauses and schedules and interprets what they might do. The reader can make their own mind up.

It certainly does not justify the Bill in any way.

The government plans to pass the UK Internal Market Bill before the UK leaves the transition period at 11pm on 31 December – this means there will be limited time for parliament to scrutinise this constitutionally significant piece of legislation.

It will need to pass both the Commons and the Lords before it can become law, and both Houses will be able to table amendments.

But see proroguation above.

[Suff]

Why would he need to prorogue parliament? He holds an 80 seat majority. The prior attempt to prorogue parliament was an attempt to allow the government to set policy (as they saw it), to a parliament which was running amok. The courts decided that the Parliament was quite entitled to run amok under the laws of the day. Then the Parliament made a fatal mistake. They let the people decide whether they liked what Parliament was doing.

If Parliament doesn't like his bill, they can modify it. The lords can reject it. But if the parliament approves it, the legislation docket can be adjusted to fast track the bill into law before end Dec. If it passes, that means that the UK parliament gave assent to the bill. A bill which tells the courts how to act. Parliament has the right to tell the courts what to do, the PM does not. Well not on his own. It will not mean that the minister which used the bill broke the law or the PM broke the law. It will mean the Entire Government of the UK decided to break international law.

There is plenty of time for the parliament to consider this and to vote on this. What they need to remember is December. When the voters voted on what they thought of the Withdrawal bill, the parliament and the parties who were in power at the time. Way more than required didn't like it and most of them will be happy with this legislation. So parliament has to think very carefully before they vote on this.

A huge amount of noise is currently ongoing, as if the PM has already breached international law, the EU acting as if simply talking about telling them to take a hike is the same as doing it..... The Democrats in the US playing to the gallery because they think they are going to get rid of Trump, reinstate TPP and get a deal with the EU.....

When this goes up for discussion in Parliament, lets hope that things become a little bit more real. Like, Nobody has broken the law. Yet!

I still think this legislation is a tool. If it is and when it gets used, then it will become totally evident that it is a tool residing within a sensible bit of legislation to reallocate EU powers to the UK parliament.

[Workingman]

The Lords can delay a Bill for up to a year or the start of a new session of parliament. The present session ends, by convention, in March / April 2021. Once a new session starts any Bills in the pipeline get automatic approval without the Lords' consent.

The mood music is that there is no appetite for the Bill in the HoL so it could keep amending and sending it back despite what the HoC does all the way to next Spring. The only way to definitely get the Bill passed by Dec, assuming the HoC plays ball, is to start a new session and that means....

.... possibly another trip to the Supreme Court.

[Suff]

Possibly. But it was my understanding that it was the legislative agenda which determined how long the HOL could hold up a bill. They get two knockbacks and on the third, it goes through. If I recall, this has already happened with the new government. Hammered right through the HOL against their wishes.

[Workingman]

Possibly. But it was my understanding that it was the legislative agenda which determined how long the HOL could hold up a bill. They get two knockbacks and on the third, it goes through.

Wrong!

[Suff]

Hmm, see what you mean. It seems that the HOL has been more accommodating than they could be.

I think it would be inadvisable for the HOL to go that route but it's up to them. This whole bill has the smell of an opening gambit.

[Workingman]

I don't have a problem with the idea of an opening gambit, it is a perfectly reasonable negotiation tactic

But.... I, along with many others, have accepted that we have left the EU. and that we are entering a new era where we make our own trade deals and treaties with others. The gambit is late in the day.

What I will not ever do is freely allow my government, my representatives, to break the law, be it national or international unhindered. At the moment, and by its own admission, it is about to break international law and no amount of deflection or straw men are going to be able to justify what is being done.

[Suff]

Well, acrually not WM,. The government has proposed a bill which would allow them, if they cannot come to an agreement with the EU, to unilaterally act to preserve the integrity of the UK internal market.

The histrionics of the UK having broken the law, or are about to break the law, imminently, do not bear scrutiny.

Parliament has not even fully debated the proposed bill and the government is going to break the law.

The cart is in York and the horses are in London.

[Suff]

Much news about parliament passing the bill, initially. Apparently the amendments are where the clashes are going to be.

The elephant in the room, though, is that the bill passed by 77 with 32 Tories abstaining and 2 voting against. Now it was my understanding that the Tories have an 80 seat majority and that the two votes against reduces that to 76.

So with 32 Tories abstaining, I wonder just who voted (or abstained), to get the extra 33 votes to make a 77 seat win??? Something which is not being discussed. Perhaps because 77 is less than 80 so the press were too lazy to do the work, or perhaps because they don't want to let people know that there are more than Tories here who want this??