gettin' weird on the other side of the pond

ericgtr12

Elite Member
Staff member
I Voted
Posts
1,817
Reaction score
3,104

Scepticalscribe

Moderator
Staff member
Posts
1,103
Reaction score
1,717
Guess it's not just some pols in the USA may figure the rule of law is about as good as which way the wind's blowing in courts of law on a given afternoon


This merits a lengthier response, but you do recall how Brandon Lewis (the Northern Ireland Secretary) let slip - in the House of Commons - around a fortnight ago that the government's intention to introduce legislation to over-ride provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement would break international law "in a specific and very limited way."

As you can imagine, that didn't go down well, not with those with whom the UK has negotiated international agreements, and not with those with whom the UK is still negotiating.....um, international agreements.
 
Last edited:

Chew Toy McCoy

Site Champ
Posts
656
Reaction score
1,036
in the House of Commons - around a fortnight ago that the government's intention to introduce legislation to over-ride provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement would break international law "in a specific and very limited way."

Language like this is why some people like Trump with what they call straight talk. I have no idea what you said there, and I’m not talking about “fortnight”.
 

Scepticalscribe

Moderator
Staff member
Posts
1,103
Reaction score
1,717
Language like this is why some people like Trump with what they call straight talk. I have no idea what you said there, and I’m not talking about “fortnight”.

Actually, most of their international interlocutors (to wit, the EU, the US administration - rather, Nancy Pelosi - who made clear that if the UK government intended to break the Good Friday Agreement - an international treaty deposited with the UN, - that they could go boil their heads if they thought Congress would agree a post-Brexit trade deal, she phrased it a bit more diplomatically than that, but that is what she meant - and the Irish government) heard the bit where they said (never subsequently denied) that they would break international law. Never mind the moronic qualification.

The idiot - sorry, individual - who let this slip (yes, it was in his talking points, speaking notes) does not appear to have been the sharpest tool in the cutlery drawer, and probably thought that he was being exceedingly subtle, and clever, by finessing things.

He wasn't, as he has shredded the government's international reputation; after all, if you boast that you are going to break international law (as a western democracy?) you lose credibility, moral authority and your word means next to nothing.

From a practical perspective, this means that it will be a lot harder for the UK to conclude trade agreements (and other international agreements) post Brexit.
 

lizkat

Thread Starter
Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,016
Reaction score
2,238
Language like this is why some people like Trump with what they call straight talk. I have no idea what you said there, and I’m not talking about “fortnight”.

Start by just figuring it's not every day you get a government official standing up to say the government means to break a law, albeit "in a specific and very limited way."

Talk about transparency. That one was so [inadvertently?] put right out there they should have pasted some raptor silhouettes on it, on the odd chance a songbird might otherwise fly straight into it.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Site Champ
Posts
656
Reaction score
1,036
Actually, most of their international interlocutors (to wit, the EU, the US administration - rather, Nancy Pelosi - who made clear that if the UK government intended to break the Good Friday Agreement - an international treaty deposited with the UN, - that they could go boil their heads if they thought Congress would agree a post-Brexit trade deal, she phrased it a bit more diplomatically than that, but that is what she meant - and the Irish government) heard the bit where they said (never subsequently denied) that they would break international law. Never mind the moronic qualification.

The idiot - sorry, individual - who let this slip (yes, it was in his talking points, speaking notes) does not appear to have been the sharpest tool in the cutlery drawer, and probably thought that he was being exceedingly subtle, and clever, by finessing things.

He wasn't, as he has shredded the government's international reputation; after all, if you boast that you are going to break international law (as a western democracy?) you lose credibility, moral authority and your word means next to nothing.

From a practical perspective, this means that it will be a lot harder for the UK to conclude trade agreements (and other agreements) post Brexit.

I meant less words, not more :mad:

If you had to summarize it by handwriting on one side of a cocktail napkin what would you write?
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Site Champ
Posts
656
Reaction score
1,036
Start by just figuring it's not every day you get a government official standing up to say the government means to break a law, albeit "in a specific and very limited way."

Talk about transparency. That one was so [inadvertently?] put right out there they should have pasted some raptor silhouettes on it, on the odd chance a songbird might otherwise fly straight into it.

Yes, the US frowns on that. I mean the saying it part. We just do it, especially if it involves explosives. We’ll even break our own laws if it means we get to use explosives.
 

lizkat

Thread Starter
Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,016
Reaction score
2,238

lizkat

Thread Starter
Elite Member
I Voted
Posts
1,016
Reaction score
2,238
Yes, the US frowns on that. I mean the saying it part. We just do it, especially if it involves explosives. We’ll even break our own laws if it means we get to use explosives.

Yeah but we don't usually send someone out to stand up and say "we're gonna break a piece of our rule of law now." We just do it and then meet behind closed doors to try to find some guys in Congress to put some clothes on it for a retroactive photo-op.

Johnson got part of it right. He dresses stuff up with 180s like Trump does, like to spin your head around on your neck sometimes. He said his Internal Markets Bill is meant to safeguard the Good Friday Agreement...

The secretary for Northern Ireland though more or less got up there and said uh well not really, but don't worry it's for a good cause.

And the conservatives referenced in that tweet then said right then no problem and voted against the new clause in the bill with the requirement for ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the courts.

Here we only find out stuff like that if the press gets a nice leak.
 

Arkitect

Power User
Posts
82
Reaction score
218
1601890063138.png


On Thursday our Lord Chancellor aka "Justice" Secretary Robert Buckland paraded into Temple Church and then had the gall to deliver a speech declaring that he was committed to defending the “rule of law”. (But not that committed, obviously. Not committed enough to actually defend it or even vote against breaking it!)

His speech was delivered on the day the EU announced it was taking the UK to a European court over the internal market bill because it breaches international law.

Buckland and Attorney General Suella Braverman, have faced calls from senior lawyers to step down because of the government’s determination to pass the legislation which provides for the UK to override the EU withdrawal agreement signed earlier this year.

We in the UK have to realise that we made the first jump into madness in 2016 when a small majority voted to Leave the EU.
That blew the doors off any common sense and gave impetus to the Right wingers…

I am not saying the tail wagged the dog, but the population of this mad little island needs a big slap around the head for contributing to the political shit storm we face now.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom