Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

Lord Lamont - another very strong Eurosceptic and Brexiter - has also strongly condemned plans to breack our commitments. From what I can see reported chances are this will pass but I think it'll be close/near death and there'll be some very narrow votes on  some sharply drafted amendments in the Lords and Commons.

At the same time Cummings has apparently been roaming round DCMS asking about how to make a £1trillion British tech company and moaning about Deep Mind being sold to Google (I agree with him there). I always thought a deal would be difficult, because the politics of no deal are better. But I still find it weird that, after all the fears of Singapore on Thames and deregulation the UK and EU have apparently more or less agreed on labour rights, consumer rights, environmental regulations etc (these have just not come up as issues), and the actual sticking point is a desire for state capitalism in the tech sector (And fisheries - but fisheries is an issue in every trade deal.)

This firmly proving self interest is absolutely not my motivation in finding brexit abhorant

[Sheilbh]

Maybe it would make more sense if you accepted that the government and thus the country is yanked around by Dominic Cummings and his petty issues.

That goes without saying

I think there is a really good argument for more state capitalism after the pandemic - I think that really exposed core weaknesses in the way the world has developed. And I think it's going to be a political issue in the UK and the EU. But I just am surprised that the issue the government cares most about is their ability to build Minitel

[Tamas]

Maybe it would make more sense if you accepted that the government and thus the country is yanked around by Dominic Cummings and his petty issues.

That goes without saying

I think there is a really good argument for more state capitalism after the pandemic - I think that really exposed core weaknesses in the way the world has developed. And I think it's going to be a political issue in the UK and the EU. But I just am surprised that the issue the government cares most about is their ability to build Minitel

I would just assume corruption and/or pet peeves. I mean, it is surely not a practical example of how the US state built Microsoft or Facebook with taxpayer money.

[Sheilbh]

I would just assume corruption and/or pet peeves. I mean, it is surely not a practical example of how the US state built Microsoft or Facebook with taxpayer money.

I get his point around DeepMind, which from everything I understand was a world-leading AI company that was sold to Google. Apparently Cummings view is that the state should have provided investment and the issue with the UK tech scene is there is generally a bit of a limit on how much capital can be raised in the UK - but there are a few companies especially in fintech that have managed it.

Apparently the two things he keeps citing are that he wants a UK DARPA and that he wants to basically subsidise companies (like the Japanese did with semiconductor manufacturers in the 80s). Neither of those ideas necessarily sound bad - but I'm also not sure if they're prohibited now if the government wanted to spend the money. And, more importantly, they're just baffling coming from a Conservative government - maybe Corbyn did win the argument after all

[celedhring]

So in the end the UK, of all nations, under a tory government, ultimately will leave the EU so they can have state-funded industry? 

[Tamas]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brussels-could-carve-up-uk-if-tories-reject-brexit-bill-says-johnson

Brussels could 'carve up' UK if Tories reject Brexit bill, says Johnson
PM claims internal market bill is needed to counter EU 'threats' to put a blockade in Irish Sea

Boris Johnson has said his controversial legislation to override parts of his Brexit deal is needed to end EU threats to install a "blockade" in the Irish Sea.

The prime minister said Brussels could "carve up our country" and "seriously endanger peace and stability" in Northern Ireland if Conservative MPs rebel to block the internal market bill.

[The Brain]

In for a penny, in for a pound.

[Josquius]

Gotta love a bit of imperialist language peppered into idiotic ramblings.

[Tamas]

Even in its most mildest interpretation his article complains about what everyone was talking about when the WA was signed by him, namely that there is going to be a border on the Irish Sea.

[Tamas]

Brexit: Gove claims internal market bill protects UK integrity from EU 'threat'
Cabinet Office minister says new legislation 'entirely consistent with the rule of law'

They sign an agreement and then have the thick skin to complain about the EU insisting they keep to it, and label it a threat.


This would be rich shit from any third world shithole. Prestige of the UK has been in a freefall ever since the bloody referendum.

[Tamas]

(Attorney General) Braverman was asked what had changed since former justice minister Lord Faulks stated in 2015 that ministers would not breach international law. She said his statement reflected "government policy at the time".

[Sheilbh]

(Attorney General) Braverman was asked what had changed since former justice minister Lord Faulks stated in 2015 that ministers would not breach international law. She said his statement reflected "government policy at the time".

She's kind of right. The 2010-15 version of the Ministerial Code said "The Ministerial Code should be read [against] the background of the overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life." Once Cameron had a majority he removed the stuff around international law and changed it to "The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life."

There was a bit of a row at the time. The Cabinet Office's position was that this was just streamlining the text and international law is included in "comply with the law". I think from my memory of the Tories at the time that was probably mainly focused on the ECHR (and, possibly, environmental treaties - I think there have been successful claims that certain decisions by ministers like Heathrow or HS2 breach UK obligations to cut carbon emissions) and there was talk of clarifying that Ministers had to follow domestic law/will of Parliament and not the Convention, if we didn't withdraw from that first.

But I think it was step one on the long Tory campaign to get rid of the Human Rights Act and the ECHR - which is a big bete noire of the Tory party, Theresa May had the novel view to stay in the EU but leave the ECHR

[Syt]

[Zanza]

@Sheilbh: ECHR is next... fits to their stance on UK judiciary...

Boris Johnson set to opt out of human rights laws
Prime Minister to open second confrontation with EU in bid to ease migrant deportation cases

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/boris-johnson-set-opt-human-rights-laws/

[Tamas]

So surely breaking or not breaking international law should not be a toggle switch based on annual government agenda for a non-pariah state?