Dover Pilot- Registered: 28 Jul 2018
- Posts: 333
Captain Haddock wrote:Not sure why country where data is 'stored' makes any difference (unless unfriendly actor with access).
Oh dear
if you don't realise the legal implications of a no deal Brexit on data sovereignty then you probably don't understand Brexit at all.
Guest 3701 likes this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Back to the deal or no deal debate, this is about the most well-judged and objective commentary you will find at the moment. Recommended reading for those with a genuine interest.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/beware-the-no-deal-spin-as-we-approach-brexit-endgame-26x8x03m9?shareToken=8e39a140810237d5eef390d9bec8bfd9Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
something fishy going on here. lol
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 2,844
Codswallop. Sick to the gills, BD. But it'd help if fish weren't so errantly slippy and stayed within borders.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
wgs nuts to you to. lol
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,225
Interesting to see headlines that "Barnier has been sidelined" today. Of course, read the body of the article and you find out that Frost has also been bypassed and it's the big political push at leader level. Expect the compromises to start coming soon.
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,900
You have to smile! According to the Town and Country Planning (Border Facilities and Infrastructure) (EU Exit) (England) Special Development Order 2020...
Interpretation
2.—(1) In this Order—
“border department” means any of—
(a)the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
(b)the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;
(c)the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; or
(d)the Secretary of State for Transport.
Alas poor UK Border Force, I knew him, Horatio!
(Not my real name.)
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,225
All sorts of accusations and stories flying around today. My own view is that for all the noise, it means we are getting nearer to compromises on both sides. Smoke and mirrors.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,482
Of course. Does anyone really believe that it's in the interests of either the EU or the UK to make it difficult to buy 'stuff' which both parties wish to purchase?
'If no one went no faster than what I do there'd be a sight less trouble in this world'
Pablo- Registered: 21 Mar 2018
- Posts: 614
Most of which comes from China Bob.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Captain Haddock wrote:Of course. Does anyone really believe that it's in the interests of either the EU or the UK to make it difficult to buy 'stuff' which both parties wish to purchase?
Well obviously someone does. Because that's exactly what we have been doing for the last 40 years. Doh!
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,225
Random theory alert:
Could it be that Boris Johnson knows that without Brexit, he has all but outlived his political usefulness?
So with Labour and Lib Dems exiting the Brexit debate, No. 10 is desperate to relight the Brexit spark as a political issue - hence this latest talk of rowing back on the Agreement that Boris himself sold as his own victory and a masterstroke of his apparent genius? So this is all stage managed for domestic consumption, to distract from the concessions that we are bound to make shortly.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
An interesting day ahead. The full details of the proposed changes to the withdrawal agreement are due to be introduced in the commons. Brandon Lewis has paved the way by admitting that they breach international law. Jonathan Jones, a senior civil servant and a lawyer of international repute, has handed in his notice as a result. He's the 6th senior civil servant to leave under Laughing Boy's administration.
All ministers are under oath to uphold the rule of law, especially figures such as Suella Braverman as attorney general. Ths includes international law. How desperate have we become as a nation to implement the Cummings dream of a no deal Brexit?
And how will the house vote on it? Are their enough Tory MPs left with sufficient intergity to reject such an inflammatory piece of legislation? And on a local level, how will Natalie react? She was servile in the extreme in her support of Cummings and his ludicrous Barnard Castle eyetest. Will she display some backbone?
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,900
I've had a brief thumb-through Bill 177 and it seems to me that it needs to be gone through provision by provision before one can say with confidence what the heck it actually means! It seems very intricate and yet, at the same time, rushed, at least in parts. Things to look out for include our future relationship with the Isle of Man, the location of "checkpoints" for goods crossing the UK under Common Transit, the operation of temporary exportation for UK goods, the deemed time of arrival for airfreight, and so on. Certainly Ministers of the Crown and Secretaries of State appear to get a bigger role, when once HMRC Commissioners would've been in the driving seat.
(Not my real name.)
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,225
I'm loving the conveyor belt of excuses that Number 10 is putting out for the PM no longer agreeing with his own Agreement.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
From today's Times. So we have a blatant example of ministers choosing to ignore their legally binding responsibilities. Do any of our contributors have an explanation as to why this should be the case?
The decision by Sir Jonathan Jones to resign as the government’s legal chief represents the culmination of more than a year of bitter conflict between officials and ministers.
Sir Jonathan stepped down after advising that plans to change the Brexit deal would breach international law. Ministers initially opted to take a second legal opinion, which reached the same conclusion, before deciding to push ahead regardless.
The Treasury solicitor, who is obliged to uphold the law under the civil service code, felt that he had no choice but to resign.
By contrast Suella Braverman, the attorney-general, and Michael Ellis, the solicitor-general, remain in post.
A former senior government figure said that Sir Jonathan had clashed with Ms Braverman over claims that she failed to stand up to Downing Street. The source said: “He felt that Suella had not properly taken on board the nature of her position as attorney-general.
“He felt that he was struggling to get her to rise above being a party political figure and to exercise her function to provide honest legal advice to the government. He was an outstanding Treasury solicitor and I think he just felt he could not carry on if she wasn’t going to stand up for the basic principles of her role.”
Another insider said that there had been tensions between the two for months, adding: “The job of the attorney-general is to uphold the rule of law and say when something is unlawful.
“And it was also Jonathan’s job under the civil service code not to do anything unlawful. I understand he just felt that in the circumstances he had no choice but to resign. He has always been a discreet man and it is not his style to speak out about it but he has been clearly uncomfortable for some time.”
The enmity between ministers and government lawyers runs deep. Senior figures in government have viewed officials with suspicion since Boris Johnson’s plans to prorogue parliament in an effort to force through his Brexit deal were leaked last year.
Many in the legal profession have been infuriated by repeated criticism of the role of judges.
In turn, the decision by the prime minister and Dominic Cummings, his most senior aide, to target “judicial activism” is said to have infuriated officials.
“The lawyers find this government intolerable because they think they have no respect for the law,” a source said.
“There’s this idea that the law stands in the way of delivering for the British people, there’s a persistent sneering at institutions and the law. They have respect for Dominic Raab [a former foreign office lawyer] but not for Buckland and Suella.”
Heads of the two main branches of the legal profession in Britain also criticised the government over a statement in the Commons by Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, who claimed that the government would breach international law “in a very specific and limited way”.
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,225
I am convinced. Number 10 has no expectation, whatsoever, of this becoming law. They know it'll not pass through the HoL. They don't want it too either.
What they want is to re-run old arguments as a distraction. They want to be blocked by the HoL and yet again, there's the fall guy - "we are where we are because of the establishment". Completely ignoring that this is Johnson's own Agreement they are trashing.
As a nation, surely our patience for such incompetent nonsense is limited? I voted remain, but accept we are leaving. For heaven's sake just get on with that and strike a deal, rather than trying to rerun the whole thing. We've more important things to focus on now.
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 2,844
If you're happy with Johnson's and Hancock's legal magic tricks as regards 'lockdown', why the hand-wringing?
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,225
Weird Granny Slater wrote:If you're happy with Johnson's and Hancock's legal magic tricks as regards 'lockdown', why the hand-wringing?
Who's this for? Me?
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Neil Moors wrote:Who's this for? Me?
I'm guessing perhaps it's for me since I was the initial poster.
If so, please don't worry - there's no hand ringing going on. Just pointing out a potentially significant international development. Quite what it's got to do with lockdown legislation escapes me.