Forum Topic

Law and our government

Please excuse the non-local post but this might just be one of the most critical moments in the UK's democratic history. Our government has, earlier this year, signed off an international act that they forced through parliament with a minimum scrutiny. They now say that this act is not suitable and has flaws (see previous sentence). So they are attempting to push through a new act that, in certain elements, breaks this previously agreed international agreement. That is, it acts against the law which this international agreement has set.I read a quote recently: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Previously I had thought that the conservative party was more than that definition. Now we have law breaking (in a specific and narrow way) being baked into legislature. And we had Mr Cummings happily keeping his job after not being bound by rules that others had to be bound by. So I am now beginning to doubt my skepticism over that quote. It now looks pretty spot on.Yes this is about Brexit. But it is more than that, it is about the UK's self-government and the UK's position in the world. Is this what the 2016 referendum was promising to deliver? Is this the UK we want for the future?

Alan Clark ● 2238d27 Comments

Can you explain to someone who knows very little about this, why this is any different to the government passing one law, deciding it wasn't quite right, and then passing another law that fixes the first one? (which would seem reasonable).It's a genuine question. I presume the answer is something to do with the international bit.

Simon Pedley ● 2238d

An act of parliament should not be enacted if it problematic. The purpose of due process is to examine and challenge the act to address problematic elements. Here is the first issue - our government under Johnson rushed this act through. They knew it had issues but they had promised to deliver so they shortened the scrutiny and relied on their 80 seat majority to push it through. This is shoddy government in action.Worse, this was not a domestic act. Otherwise it simply could be revisited and amended. This was an international agreement. You do not pass another act to sort an existing one - you amend the original law. But here a third party, the EU, is a co-signatory. So the government conjures up a new act. The new act contains the potential to work directly against elements of the international agreement - without review or approval by the co-signatory.

Alan Clark ● 2238d

This is an absolute disgrace - God alone knows what our standing in the world will be if this gets the go ahead. On top of that the policing minster, Kit Malthouse, who was vigorously defending this on the T.V. this morning, now expects the rest of us to rat out anyone not obeying this Rule of 6, staggering hypocrisy or what? Presumably none of this will apply to Cummings?

Vanessa Smith ● 2238d

Thanks Alan, that's very helpful.If you've still got the stamina for explaining, can you give me an idiot's explanation of what the issue is?(I'm the idiot of course, not you).Something to do with Northern Ireland / Ireland, and trade, then I got lost.

Simon Pedley ● 2238d

Sorry chief, do your own research

Alan Clark ● 2238d

The trade issue is agreeing not to give state aidto ailing industries which would give them an unfair advantage against similar industries in other EU countries. Nationalisation by the back door IOW. Ironically Boris has now found this idea attractive. The Ireland thing a hard border immediately impacts on an EU member state Ireland, and is contrary to the spirit of the GFA, a holy grail which many Irish American politicians had and have a sentimentalinterest in. This is regardless of any domestic repercussions.But its simply the fact that the British Prime Minister is openly threatening to break a Treaty heonly signed last year up to on behalf of HM the Queen (who he's already dragged through the mud last yearby lying basically - as is his wont) and theUK Govt.  Everything else pales into insignificance. michael adams

Michael Adams ● 2238d

Surely we need to respect our borders and so does the EU. It was obvious from the beginning that the EU would make it as difficult as possible and want some control over the UK even though we are no longer a member. It was always going to get tough, I don’t believe the government will break the law but does need to put contingency plans in place for no deal.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2238d

The point is, Boris either knew about this potential problem when he signed the deal. Or if he didn't, he should have done.  So either he hoped he would wing it by getting the EU to a last minute change like this, or he was incompetent in not understanding all the potential ramifications in the various scenarios, the penny has, at last dropped and he is trying to forestall a potential horror story for the UK and its trade with Ireland.  Either way, it is disgraceful.

Claire Moran ● 2238d

“It was always going to be tough “. Really? Four years ago we were categorically promised that it would be simple. Don’t you remember?“The EU would make it as difficult as possible”. Really? Four years ago we were promised that they need us more than we need them. Or don’t you remember?“I don’t believe it will break the law”. Yet the N Ireland minister confirmed it does. That is, the government acknowledged it is illegal. Explain your ‘my belief’. Got a bit of legal reference? Or just spouting words?

Alan Clark ● 2238d

It’s called negotiating, if I recall the treaty was a problem over the backstop it is utter madness for the EU to split mainland with NI which is part of the UK. The EU have a massive issue with making the UK departure too easy because other countries will follow so they are to make it difficult to deter others. Then of course there is the issue between North/Southern Ireland no hard border so everyone needs to find a solution that is workable.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2238d

But, Jayne, Boris knew this, and with his army of highly paid advisors, should have known, before he signed the deal.

Claire Moran ● 2238d

Jayne, you have swallowed the Johnson lie, hook line and sinker. It's not a question of the EU's making the UK departure difficult pour décourager les autres. It's all about avoiding a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland to the detriment of the GFA. The EU is rightly standing up for the interests of one of the 27. Johnson wants a no-deal Brexit as red meat for his baying hounds, and all this sound and fury is just to pin the blame on the EU for the collapse of negotiations. His suggestion the EU may impose a blockade on movement of goods from the rest of the UK is baseless scaremongering.

Robert Fish ● 2238d

" The EU have a massive issue with making the UK departuretoo easy"Many remainers myself included were making that argumentbefore the referendum. But when you think about it, itsimply isn't true. The EU is a club with benefits for members. There is a subscription charge and there are rules. Before the referendum voters were being told theUK could still enjoy all the benefits of being in the club, with paying the annual subscriptionand without obeying the rules.We were going to "take back control".The EU aren't playing "hardball" all of a sudden.Those have been the club rules for all members and always have been.The trade issue is over a "level playing field"in the EU. The club rule is that member states aren't allowed to subsidise or offer state aid to their own industries if this offers them anadvantage over the industries of other EU states. Whether they do or not is decided by a club committee of EU states.To ensure tarriff free trade post Brexit, *withouthaving to pay the subs* Boris Johnson signed up tothis. No state aid without EU permission. The more extreme leavers objected to this at the time as according to them it meant the UK wasn't getting back control at all. Either Boris didn't notice at the time or did and found itacceptable.Now he's changed his mind. And yet he expects to be able to carry on meaningful negotiations with peoplewho know he might go back on his word on anythinghe agrees to on the day after leaving the negotiating table. An absence of tariff free trade with the EU will mean queues of lorries miles long and empty supermarket shelves for months until the UK comes up with someone the EU are again willing to trust and negotiate with.Up until Brexit the UK was trading on the gratitude of Europe and the World for saving it from Hitler.After that went out of the window, it traded on its reputation for acting on principle and for keeping its word. As it did in 1939.Now that's in danger of going out of the window too.michael adamsI will resign if the law was “broken in a way that I find unacceptable”. "UK justice secretary, Robert Buckland.

Michael Adams ● 2237d

Apologies. That should have course have readBefore the referendum voters were being told theUK could still enjoy all the benefits of being in the club, *without* paying the annual subscriptionand without obeying the rules.

Michael Adams ● 2237d

All you write, Mr Adams, is exactly right. This notion that the EU are 'setting an example' is only correct in so far as they are making it very clear that the mechanisms and constraints of being within the single market are paramount. No third-party country, especially not one right on the doorstep, can flog in lower standard goods or services that undermine these. That is the EU position, whereas the UK position is wanting preferable trade terms with no constraints. Unrealistic.Worse, this Johnson government now wants to revise the withdrawal agreement that they themselves signed. The people who failed to "respect our borders" were the ministers of this government. Johnson himself pushed this agreement through. He allowed the need for border checks between Northern Ireland and mainland UK. Not anyone else - so don't blame that on the EU.

Alan Clark ● 2237d

Oh, for the old days when Banana Republic was was a clothes shop.The most important job of government is to uphold the rule of law, said M.Thatcher. Imagine in what contempt in which she would hold Johnson and his bunch of second-rate lickspittles.

Stewart Jones ● 2237d

The article is good, but the Ed Milliband video is a joy.  A perfect demolition of our Prime Minister.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/14/ed-miliband-revels-in-the-humiliation-of-boris-and-his-word-salad

Alastair Banton ● 2237d

Robert Buckland is a charlatan!"Broken in a way i find unacceptable"As opposed to broken in a way he does find acceptable perhaps? And this from a barrister!!!

Craig David Mcdowell ● 2237d

Robert, that’s unnecessary as it happens I am a remainer, I watched news night last night with an EU representative when asked about imposing border checks between NI and the rest of the UK they had no answer and actually said it was a minor issue and could be resolved. They also used the word gamesmanship! Lets wait to see how the game is played out the EU and UK need each other.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2237d

To be fair, he was a criminal barrister practisingsolely in Welsh Courts up until 2010. So possibly his main interest up until that point was in things like sheep rustling. (duck)It was only his rarity value as a Welsh Conservativeand his dogged persistence in contesting unwinnable seats that landed him his first big job as SolicitorGeneral and his elevation to QC. It does make you wonder though doesn't it ? He said it on the Andrew Marr show apprently.I will resign if the law was “broken in a way that I find unacceptable”. "UK justice secretary, Robert Buckland. michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 2237d

Interesting article in the Speccy about another breach of international law...https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

Russell Pearson ● 2237d

Russell, great article thank you

Jayne Thorburn ● 2237d

It does not detract from the subject we are discussing. This disgraceful government intends to break a treaty that they enthusiastically promoted which they then took to the people, only to discover once they'd read it that it was unacceptable. Incompetence on a staggering scale. Who actually believed Johnson when he said it was an oven ready deal? He lied then and he's lying now. He has form.

Stewart Jones ● 2237d

His modus operandi is to make wildly exaggerated claims (oven ready, world beating, etc.) and not care about the veracity of the claim; just that it makes a good headline for that day. Nor care if there is no benefit or even substantial damage from what he claims is so good. He has the very opposite of the midus touch.At some point even the right-wing press will sicken of these lies and the damage to their party and to the country. At that point Johnson will become the sort of thing everyone avoids treading in.

Alan Clark ● 2237d

It does not detract from the subject we are discussing. This disgraceful government intends to break a treaty that they enthusiastically promoted which they then took to the people, only to discover once they'd read it that it was unacceptable. Incompetence on a staggering scale. Who actually believed Johnson when he said it was an oven ready deal? He lied then and he's lying now. He has form.

Stewart Jones ● 2237d

The issue here it’s seems, is whether a nation’s constitutional law is more important than international law - which, overrides the other? The Germans decided the former. Steven Barrett thought the latter was more important, but others disagreed.As Barrett wrote back in May:“Faith that promises will be kept is what keeps the economy going and allows it to grow. It is what gives clever entrepreneurs the confidence to take a risk. Yet Germany risks now fundamentally undermining that faith on a global level. This is about more than the euro. For if one international treaty can be changed to satisfy their domestic law then can others?”https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-must-back-the-eu-in-its-fight-with-german-judges

Russell Pearson ● 2237d

Utter rubbish designed to obfuscate the issue. What you describe might just be worth a legislative debate if an old (internationally agreed) law had later a new unforeseen local problem. Perhaps a few years down the line a country might contend that an international agreement, now baked into local legislation, could be subject to local amendments to that local legislation. Here we have a single government, indeed a single premier and a single suite of ministers, signing one agreement a few months ago (this years ffs) and now planning to ride roughshod over that international agreement. “Duh, I signed this agreement but missed the content.”  Or: “Duh, I signed the agreement and knew it was crap but I’d my fingers crossed so lying about that is ok.”  Which one?

Alan Clark ● 2237d