The Brexit Consequences Thread

[exbluejob]

Meanwhile.....

”On the issue of access to UK waters, Beaune said Downing Street would not be allowed to “lay down the law” in the negotiation. “We are still very far from an agreement,” he said. “There can be no agreement unless there is one that gives sustainable and wide-ranging access to British waters … Our terms are known, they are not new.”

EU will not fall into Brexit 'negotiating trap', UK told

Irish foreign minister also calls for avoidance of blame game as ‘truth of Brexit’ becomes clear

www.theguardian.com

UK terms are known and nothing new, UK waters, not EU waters.

 

[History_Man]

UK terms are known and nothing new, UK waters, not EU waters.

The French have backed themselves into a corner entirely of their own making.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

What about todays news that Barnier thinks we've caved on the EU Human Rights ? tactic, compromise or surrender.

 

[exbluejob]

What about todays news that Barnier thinks we've caved on the EU Human Rights ? tactic, compromise or surrender.

Britain has 'given in' on human rights? The ones that British lawyers wrote after WW2? The ones that have nothing to do with EU membership? How extraordinary.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

Britain has 'given in' on human rights? The ones that British lawyers wrote after WW2? The ones that have nothing to do with EU membership? How extraordinary.

I somehow think those lawyers would be stunned with the sorts of cases used in relation to those laws.

The fundamental problem with this globalist bollox, is the way it becomes a 'guardian' of democracy and the will of the people, as manifested by our representatives become subject to a higher authority and its not god, but activist judges and lawyers.

 

[WightMivvi]

What about todays news that Barnier thinks we've caved on the EU Human Rights ? tactic, compromise or surrender.

I’m wondering if it’s a “hey look, a squirrel” from him to distract the European audience from something else. A case of “But we got this big win, so that thing we’re not going to get? it’s small fry and we didn’t really want it anyway.”

The ECHR is a political (not trade) issue that can still be neutered if we’re creative enough. It’s also part of UK domestic law so doesn’t represent EU power over us.

They’re effectively trumpeting that they’ve convinced us to keep some of our own laws.

That suggests Barnier is trying hard to spin things, and that’s the best he’s got.

 

[exbluejob]

That suggests Barnier is trying hard to spin things, and that’s the best he’s got.

Is anyone actually believing him? A lot of us know that just because ECHR has Europe in its title it doesn't mean its anything to do with the EU. I think he's making himself look exactly like he's clutching at straws, unless he thinks its a way to show he's 'won' something because the UK is refusing to back down on sovereignty.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

I’m wondering if it’s a “hey look, a squirrel” from him to distract the European audience from something else. A case of “But we got this big win, so that thing we’re not going to get? it’s small fry and we didn’t really want it anyway.”

The ECHR is a political (not trade) issue that can still be neutered if we’re creative enough. It’s also part of UK domestic law so doesn’t represent EU power over us.

They’re effectively trumpeting that they’ve convinced us to keep some of our own laws.

That suggests Barnier is trying hard to spin things, and that’s the best he’s got.

Its possible; a classic political trick of turning a negative into a positive. The crux for the UK, is the exit from any european legal framework was one of the critical 'take back control' redlines and if we have compromised, then it will be difficult to explain it away to the brexit side.

 

[WightMivvi]

Is anyone actually believing him? A lot of us know that just because ECHR has Europe in its title it doesn't mean its anything to do with the EU. I think he's making himself look exactly like he's clutching at straws, unless he thinks its a way to show he's 'won' something because the UK is refusing to back down on sovereignty.

We were told repeatedly during the Referendum that the ECHR was not part of the EU. It’s one of the things the Remain camp used to suggest we were stupid and brainwashed.

So all that has happened is that the EU and UK have agreed to continue to use a non-EU standard.

I suppose another point of view is that the current status-quo is a victory (cue someone finding the video for “ You’re in the army now”) as our European allies continue to have access to our superior intelligence without having to do a messy rewrite of various EU laws.

 

[WightMivvi]

Its possible; a classic political trick of turning a negative into a positive. The crux for the UK, is the exit from any european legal framework was one of the critical 'take back control' redlines and if we have compromised, then it will be difficult to explain it away to the brexit side.

Except the ECHR is not an EU-controlled law. We were told so during the Referendum campaign. It’s a non-EU standard that was written into UK domestic law.

We can’t take back control of the ECHR from the EU because the EU do not control the ECHR.

 

[exbluejob]

Except the ECHR is not an EU-controlled law. We were told so during the Referendum campaign. It’s a non-EU standard that was written into UK domestic law.

We can’t take back control of the ECHR from the EU because the EU do not control the ECHR.

Give the man a big fat cigar!!

 

[PhotEx]

Britain has 'given in' on human rights? The ones that British lawyers wrote after WW2? The ones that have nothing to do with EU membership? How extraordinary.

how can you tell when a Frenchman's lying?

his lips move

 

[PhotEx]

Is anyone actually believing him? A lot of us know that just because ECHR has Europe in its title it doesn't mean its anything to do with the EU. I think he's making himself look exactly like he's clutching at straws, unless he thinks its a way to show he's 'won' something because the UK is refusing to back down on sovereignty.

You mean like the EU trick of simply copying and pasting vast swathes of UN regulations - like on cars - onto EU headed notepaper and passing it off as a wonderful European thing?

 

[exbluejob]

You mean like the EU trick of simply copying and pasting vast swathes of UN regulations - like on cars - onto EU headed notepaper and passing it off as a wonderful European thing?

Also food standards, you'd be hard pressed to find the differences between EU regulations and US regulations (despite the furore vis a vis chlorinated chicken). Also plant regulations, except the UKs are a bit tougher.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

Except the ECHR is not an EU-controlled law. We were told so during the Referendum campaign. It’s a non-EU standard that was written into UK domestic law.

We can’t take back control of the ECHR from the EU because the EU do not control the ECHR.

Note: I said European, not european union and yes, we should ditch it all... No law is above UK Law.

 

[WightMivvi]

Note: I said European, not european union and yes, we should ditch it all... No law is above UK Law.

If keeping it gives us advantages in the Brexit negotiations then let’s keep it.

There are ways around it without getting rid of it.

For example, Parliament is sovereign and makes the law. However, there are often a lot of grey areas and unintended consequences that politically activists can exploit via the courts.

When that happens, Parliament could just update the law to prevent that loophole being used again.

Yes, it’ll be like Whack-a-Mole, but there’s nothing to stop us. We could neuter the ECHR without getting rid of it.

Therefore, keeping the ECHR is, to me, not a biggie.

 

[PhotEx]

If keeping it gives us advantages in the Brexit negotiations then let’s keep it.

There are ways around it without getting rid of it.

For example, Parliament is sovereign and makes the law. However, there are often a lot of grey areas and unintended consequences that politically activists can exploit via the courts.

When that happens, Parliament could just update the law to prevent that loophole being used again.

Yes, it’ll be like Whack-a-Mole, but there’s nothing to stop us. We could neuter the ECHR without getting rid of it.

Therefore, keeping the ECHR is, to me, not a biggie.

“Parliament in Sovereign. Nothing in the ECHR shall usurp Parliament”

sorted.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

If keeping it gives us advantages in the Brexit negotiations then let’s keep it.

There are ways around it without getting rid of it.

For example, Parliament is sovereign and makes the law. However, there are often a lot of grey areas and unintended consequences that politically activists can exploit via the courts.

When that happens, Parliament could just update the law to prevent that loophole being used again.

Yes, it’ll be like Whack-a-Mole, but there’s nothing to stop us. We could neuter the ECHR without getting rid of it.

Therefore, keeping the ECHR is, to me, not a biggie.

You make a persuasive argument and I would be willing to go along with that compromise, if I had any faith in the UK Parliament, to suddenly find a spine of its own.. All it takes is some minor whinging from the legal profession and BBC, to see parliament run away from any effort to whack anything. Brexit took several public course corrections culminating in the 2019 election to settle the matter.

I also watched the foreign aid debate in parliament (Working from home and it was on in the background). The utter refusal of this house, to accept the wider public have any say over the 'public' sums been spent to make parliament feel all warm and cosy inside.

I have long ago concluded, its better to be out alltogether and that forces parliament to govern and not hide behind the law for doing nothing.

 

[WightMivvi]

“Parliament in Sovereign. Nothing in the ECHR shall usurp Parliament”

sorted.

The problem isn’t necessarily the ECHR; it is how it is interpreted and implemented by the courts.

This isn’t a case of parliament not being sovereign, it’s more a reflection of how it is impossible for Parliament to define every possible variation or outcome.

It’s similar to the current problem of defining a “substantial meal” - is it a scotch egg, 2 scotch eggs or 2 scotch eggs and a bowl of chips? Ah, but what about falafel and salad? Or how about a ploughman’s plus soup-in-a-basket?

A pub serving a pizza and 12 pints doesn’t represent a challenge to Parliament‘s sovereignty even if it’s against the spirit of what Parliament intended.

 

[Trackpen]

Britain has 'given in' on human rights? The ones that British lawyers wrote after WW2? The ones that have nothing to do with EU membership? How extraordinary.

You mean the ECHR whose rulings the ECJ has decided it will not recognise.
That ECHR!