God save the Queen

[MBE2017]

Turn this argument around for a second.

Many in the UK Government, the Civil Service and many MP’s colluded with the European negotiators to help put through a watered down Brexit, such things as NI should never have been entertained for a second, and as a country we should have been prepared to go to world trade rules if required.

Things would have been soon negotiated after that,

Just to push this point home, and to show the power this country DOES HAVE will our £’s, the EU seeing the NI protocol going through Parliament have suddenly changed from threats to suggesting only a couple of lorries a day now need to be checked.

A bit different from the agreement can never be renegotiated and legal threats. Time to get a better Brexit, reclaim our laws and borders etc. Nothing is impossible.

 

[simon field]

I noticed Center Parks are booting out their guests for the day. Seems a tad dramatic!

I can understand maybe some of their facilities being closed, but really?

Edit: sorry, just seen it brought up in the other thread

 

[Justin Smith]

With all the issues involved in "granting" an extra Bank Holiday for the Queen's coronation (who pays for it all ? we do), what will happen about Charles's coronation ?
So, why don't we avoid all that by holding it on a Bank Holiday !

 

[Justin Smith]

I noticed Center Parks are booting out their guests for the day. Seems a tad dramatic!

I can understand maybe some of their facilities being closed, but really?

Edit: sorry, just seen it brought up in the other thread

That's a disgrace.

 

[fisicx]

That's a disgrace.

Not any more. They have backtracked.

As to the bank holiday thing, it’s not an automatic right. It’s just one of your holiday entitlements. If you want to work nobody is stopping you.

 

[Justin Smith]

As to the bank holiday thing, it’s not an automatic right. It’s just one of your holiday entitlements. If you want to work nobody is stopping you.

Err, yes they are.
Our main carrier is not working and therefore it is pointless us working.
Actually, we were also supposed to have a fibre BB connection put in on that Monday, I can't see that happening either. Having said that, if they are coming that then means I have to go into work when we won't actually be open !

 

[fisicx]

Err, yes they are.
Our main carrier is not working and therefore it is pointless us working.
Actually, we were also supposed to have a fibre BB connection put in on that Monday, I can't see that happening either. Having said that, if they are coming that then means I have to go into work when we won't actually be open !

Use the day to do some admin. Do all those jobs you have been putting off. Get all the orders packed and ready to go on Tuesday. Maybe empty all the racks and give the place a deep clean. There is always something you can do.

 

[simon field]

I think for many, the queen represented the embodiment of white supremacy, especially the poor Kenyan people.

Plus didn’t she pay off that girl who was gonna take the lovely Andy to court, just to make it go away?

Many prefer their rose-tinted spectacles it seems! ?

 

[fisicx]

Plus didn’t she pay off that girl who was gonna take the lovely Andy to court, just to make it go away?

Just like corporations do when there is a pending court case.

 

[IanSuth]

Just to push this point home, and to show the power this country DOES HAVE will our £’s, the EU seeing the NI protocol going through Parliament have suddenly changed from threats to suggesting only a couple of lorries a day now need to be checked.

A bit different from the agreement can never be renegotiated and legal threats. Time to get a better Brexit, reclaim our laws and borders etc. Nothing is impossible.

They never said every lorry needed to be checked initially.

When we got silly saying we wouldn't check any (which was plainly stupid), they hardened their stance.

it is all politics, bluff and bluster like any negotiation. Anyone who though different (or that this is by any means over) is deluded.

The simplest solution would have been to say "we agree our food and animal standards will be at least as good as the EU's for at least the next x years unless the EU massively changes their rules" which would fit with the various statements made about not watering down consumer rights etc etc. That along with a commitment that we would respect the ECJ's ruling on whether any changes to our or the EU's standards made our standards not as good would have sufficed.

BUT there were/are some who can not bear to have the ECJ having any say in the agreement which it of course must as the arbiter of the EU standards which are always going to be central to any agreement over whether checks are needed - so we got into the playground big boy shouty stuff

 

[Ozzy]

Just like corporations do when there is a pending court case.

My wife accidentally hit another car that had just one passenger in it. Her insurance paid out for four separate individual whiplash claims for the car she hit, even though there was only one person in car.
Her insurance company said it was cheaper to pay out than dispute it, so now she has four claims on her policy when she and her insurance know 3x are fraudulent.

 

[fisicx]

Same here. Someone hit our car. The other driver denied the accident even happened even though we had witnesses. Insurance just paid for the repairs, wasn’t even interested in pursuing the other driver.

It’s the way things now happen. Easier to pay people off than it is to do the right thing.

I remember Jaguar paid a huge fine in the USA as it was cheaper than getting the car to pass the emissions tests.

 

[Ozzy]

paid a huge fine in the USA as it was cheaper than

Isn't this what BP also did to make the whole Gulf of Mexico disaster disappear so none of their Execs would face any criminal proceedings?

 

[IanSuth]

Wife was waiting to pull out of work car park - air con engineer had overshot, slammed on brakes and reversed back into the front of our car.

Insurance decided knock for knock so both parties lose no claims plus had to spend next few days with the guy stood on her desk dropping dust on her as he serviced the unit.

They had no interest in even reviewing the extensive cctv of the incident (she works for a cctv company and all the demo room kit looks out at the gate and/or doorway) as I guess there was no financial incentive to

 

[japancool]

he simplest solution would have been to say "we agree our food and animal standards will be at least as good as the EU's for at least the next x years unless the EU massively changes their rules" which would fit with the various statements made about not watering down consumer rights etc etc. That along with a commitment that we would respect the ECJ's ruling on whether any changes to our or the EU's standards made our standards not as good would have sufficed.

Yes - but that only works if the EU also agrees that it will accept UK rules as equivalent.

You saw what happens when they don't - immediately after Brexit, certain shellfish from British waters could no longer be sent to the EU, even though nothing had changed at that point.

There has to be a political agreement on equivalence as well as operational equivalence.

 

[IanSuth]

Yes - but that only works if the EU also agrees that it will accept UK rules as equivalent.

You saw what happens when they don't - immediately after Brexit, certain shellfish from British waters could no longer be sent to the EU, even though nothing had changed at that point.

There has to be a political agreement on equivalence as well as operational equivalence.

That was because we point blank refused to accept any say by the ecj and said we wouldnt check anything coming in from other places.

We were the ones (as in uk) who pushed for super secure farm to plate (which includes sea to plate) tracking of all produce after the horsemeat saga. As soon as we to all intent and purposes said "but something coming from the uk may include a shellfish from some other non EU country as we have suspended tracking" we fell foul of the very rules we demanded

What is listed above as a massive climbdown from the EU suddenly is actually just what they already suggested - like here in Oct 21 (it is even the same person saying it)

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Commission proposes bespoke arrangements to benefit Northern Ireland

The European Commission has today proposed bespoke arrangements to respond to the difficulties that people in Northern Ireland have been experiencing because of Brexit, by further facilitating the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

ec.europa.eu

The Commission believes that this package of measures will make a real difference on the ground in Northern Ireland and addresses the Brexit-related problems regarding the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that have been raised by Northern Irish people and businesses. These measures come in addition to the package that was presented in June 2021, which facilitates the movement of live animals from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Today's package proposes further flexibilities in the area of food, plant and animal health, customs, medicines and engagement with Northern Irish stakeholders. It proposes a different model for the implementation of the Protocol, in which the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland - in respect of goods destined to stay in Northern Ireland - is facilitated to a significant extent. This facilitation is enabled by a series of safeguards and increased market surveillance to ensure the goods do not move into the EU's Single Market.

This package opens the way to a resolution of all outstanding implementation issues, thereby establishing predictability, stability and certainty for people and businesses in Northern Ireland

blah blah

1. A bespoke solution for Northern Ireland on food, plant and animal health (i.e. “Sanitary and Phytosanitary issues”) – leading to approximately an 80% reduction in checks

 

[IanSuth]

The EU has already said they recognise that currently we have the same rules and thus as long as nothing non compliant is coming in untracked and we don't change there is no issue

The argument is over the fact we won't sign up to the agreement because the EU want the ECJ as arbiter of whether anything we do means we are no longer equivalent and we say "no we can tell you ourselves as we don't want the ecj to have any control over anything we do"

This is also why we have had the arguments re passporting and equivalence of financial regs - it all comes down to some politicians demands for an ideologically pure Brexit where the ECJ has no say over anything - even whether we are still equivalent to the EU's regs (which they are enshrined by law as the arbiter of) - the pragmatic approach would be to just say "fine but we want an independant appeal panel if we dont agree with a decision"

 

[japancool]

What is listed above as a massive climbdown from the EU suddenly is actually just what they already suggested - like here in Oct 21 (it is even the same person saying it)

I haven't been following the latest negotiations, has the government accepted the EU proposal?

 

[MBE2017]

This is also why we have had the arguments re passporting and equivalence of financial regs - it all comes down to some politicians demands for an ideologically pure Brexit where the ECJ has no say over anything - even whether we are still equivalent to the EU's regs (which they are enshrined by law as the arbiter of) - the pragmatic approach would be to just say "fine but we want an independant appeal panel if we dont agree with a decision"

I might be wrong, but I thought the EU does not accept and independent appeal panels decision, their own terms state ECJ takes precedence over anything else, hence the problems.

It will get sorted, but end of the day I agree the EU and ECHR, ECJ should have no power above our own laws and courts, otherwise we are not a true independent country. Negotiate a trade deal both can accept or not, but we should be in control of ourselves with our elected representatives, not under the control of a trade body.

 

[IanSuth]

I might be wrong, but I thought the EU does not accept and independent appeal panels decision, their own terms state ECJ takes precedence over anything else, hence the problems.

It will get sorted, but end of the day I agree the EU and ECHR, ECJ should have no power above our own laws and courts, otherwise we are not a true independent country. Negotiate a trade deal both can accept or not, but we should be in control of ourselves with our elected representatives, not under the control of a trade body.

It is not about the ECJ have power over our courts

The ECJ is the defined arbiter or what constitutes the EU standards and directives. Just like CASCO is the arbiter of what meets the ISO standards

If you signed a contract saying you were going to do something to at least ISO standards and call it MSO (MBE's Standards Organisation) you would expect the contract to state that they reserve the right to withdraw the agreement if CASCO decide you have dropped below their standard that is not you being subservient to CASCO.

That is what we are doing when we say we will have our own standards but we promise hand on heart we will be at least as good (except we wont on many things as producers want as few standards to produce to as possible and we are a small market).

Who do you think should arbitrate on whether a UK standard meets the same standard as an EU standard ?

Why are people so hung up about making what is a commercial contract political based on language

As for ECHR that has zip zero nowt to do with the EU - it predates it, we basically wrote the treaties that created it and only later did the EU make adherence to it's decisions a prerequisite of membership - we were originating signatories decades before we joined the EEC (and signed that it could be a place to appeal above uk courts which was confirmed and enhanced with the ratification of protocol 11 in 1998 which was ratified by all including RUSSIA)

 

[IanSuth]

Here you go courtesy of Wiki -ECHR

From 7 to 10 May 1948, politicians including Winston Churchill, François Mitterrand and Konrad Adenauer, civil society representatives, academics, business leaders, trade unionists, and religious leaders convened the Congress of Europe in The Hague. At the end of the Congress, a declaration and following pledge to create the Convention was issued. The second and third Articles of the Pledge stated: "We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as right to form a political opposition. We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter."[8]

The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after the Second World War and Hague Congress. Over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member states of the Council of Europe gathered in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly to draft a "charter of human rights" and to establish a court to enforce it. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the Convention, based on an earlier draft produced by the European Movement.

The Convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome. It was ratified and entered into force on 3 September 1953. It is overseen and enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the Council of Europe. Until procedural reforms in the late 1990s, the Convention was also overseen by a European Commission on Human Rights.

 

[IanSuth]

If you really want to argue that parliament should be able to change the law to suit itself without respect to any higher legal responsibility or the rights of the individual you need to overturn
Entick V Carrington from 1762 which was the inspiration for the US 4th Amendment (due process fruit of the poison tree etc) and and basically said Governments can only do that which is specifically allowed by law and individuals can do anything except that which is expressly prohibited

Pretty much every time the UK parliament has been at odds with the ECHR is because it has decided to remove an existing right from people

 

[japancool]

Who do you think should arbitrate on whether a UK standard meets the same standard as an EU standard ?

Why are people so hung up about making what is a commercial contract political based on language

It's the idea - or the perception, rather, that the ECJ gets to have a veto over British law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that would happen is the ECJ would say "no, that doesn't match our standard. Go ahead with it if you like, but we won't certify it for import into the EU". Don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[IanSuth]

It's the idea - or the perception, rather, that the ECJ gets to have a veto over British law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that would happen is the ECJ would say "no, that doesn't match our standard. Go ahead with it if you like, but we won't certify it for import into the EU". Don't see what's wrong with that.

Yes and which is the NI point

If there are any product categories for which we have a non EU compliant UK standard there would need to be checks on shipments of those goods somewhere between mainland Uk and the Irish republic for obvious reasons.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Yes - but that only works if the EU also agrees that it will accept UK rules as equivalent.

You saw what happens when they don't - immediately after Brexit, certain shellfish from British waters could no longer be sent to the EU, even though nothing had changed at that point.

There has to be a political agreement on equivalence as well as operational equivalence.

Actually something significant had changed: we were no longer a part of the EU – we had decided to be a third-party, and to be treated as such.

And as we didn’t ask for any special treatment while we built new purification plants (as if we didn’t have time to prepare for this, deciding only to start building plants when we left), the UK's policies meant that we excluded ourselves from the their market, could not send some live shellfish to the EU.

We can blame the EU for not changing their rules to make an exception for us, but if we didn’t ask them to, why would they? The EU is a rules-based community, and we have to expect them to apply their rules to all third-parties equally, unless there is an agreement otherwise.

There are some things that we can fairly criticise the EU for, but saying they didn’t do something they were not asked to do, let alone never agreed to do, is an odd one.


Karl Limpert

 

[UkAppCoder]

I'm a monarchist, but I'm not a royalist. Macron's brilliant succinct statement says it all:

"To you, she was your Queen. To us, she was the Queen."

So, when others around the world hear the words "the Queen", they automatically think of the Queen of England. That's the power of our monarchy. It's even more powerful than the 'Football Association' not having to call itself the 'English Football Association' because the reference to England is implicitly understood.

So, Macron's clever reference "the" indicates the prestige and reputation for the very highest quality that the monarchy brings to the UK from around the world.

A monarchy is entirely different from royalism. In the same way that a member of the armed forces should respect the uniform of an officer without having to respect the person wearing the uniform, a monarchy defines 'roles', whereas royalism defines the people who play those roles.

I didn't like the Queen, but nor did I dislike her. I was indifferent to her, as I am to most of her family. In fact, I found Queen Elizabeth, as she was presented to us, pretty boring and unremarkable. I think Charles is a nice guy - a character with a sense of humour. I quite like Charles, and I think he'll be much more entertaining than his Mum was!

But at the end of the day, all I really need right now is to have my tele back. I'm really sick to the back teeth of all this sycophancy. She was a human being for goodness sake - not a divine super being!