RayC

I'm certainly no Tory supporter but the government really is facing a perfect storm - falling demand but increasing supply costs - and is caught between a rock and hard place with most inflationary factors outside of their control. A reduction in fuel duty would certainly help industry but how much of that reduction in cost would find its' way to the end consumer? Your suggestion amounts - other things being equal - to a +/-5% cut in government revenue which would - according to my back-of-a-fag packet calculations - cost the Exchequer +/-£2-3 billion. A direct subsidy of this magnitude to, say, the poorest 10% of the population might have a greater macro economic impact? In any event, I wouldn't want Sunak's job at this moment.

Tbf I think that they did cut fuel duty by 5p/ litre in the Spring statement. Also it can be argued that a cut in fuel duty wouldn't help the poorest as they are less likely to own a car.

The superior form of democracy that is the UK version looks likely to throw up a situation whereby the elected government proposes legislation, which may be in breach of international law, only to find that the proposed legislation is likely to be returned to them by an unelected second chamber. Oh, the irony! Perhaps 'Whitehall Farce' should be renamed 'Westminster Farce'?

Whereas those posters proclaiming that the UK government is in compliance with international law are fully qualified experts with degrees from the world renowned institution 'The University of Daily Express'.

Brexit, 2nd Scottish referendum, pound tanking. Is this 2022 or 2017?

The single market and the war in Ukraine are two distinct matters. This UK government was so worried about ensuring peace on the island of Ireland that it completely ignored the well publicised concerns and objections of its' (former) ally and the easily foreseeable consequences of doing so. Or alternatively the true nature of insular opportunists is made plain to see.

My reply crossed with your post but to reiterate. Maybe just accept you won, take responsibility and accountability for your decision, act in accordance with Agreements that you willingly signed and stop whining about it being other people's fault when the government you support is unable and/or unwilling to meet its' obligations. I think that it's you who needs to read and understand The Withdrawal Agreement. Enacting Article 16 does not abrogate the Agreement which remans subject to international law

In a multi-national organisation, why should that be surprising? Discussed in another post. In reality, UK MPs also have very, very limited legislative powers. The concept of directly elected Commissioners is one that I would support. However, in defence of the existing system, Commissioners are nominated by their respective governments, who presumably select individuals who they feel will also best represent their country. See previous paragraph You're right. Brexiters won. As you again rightly say: 'Deal with it'. Take accountability and responsibility for your decision. Stop pointing the finger at others for your inability to deliver what was promised. A good start might be to try and implement a Agreement which Brexiters lauded as 'Getting Brexit done', rather than try to rewrite a Protocol which, it appears, the majority of the public most affected (NI electorate) have no desire to be rewritten.

Except that in reality, a backbench MP has a very slim chance of getting any bill debated in the House, and a snowball's chance in hell of it actually becoming law. Covered by others. I would just add that you ignore the fact that the European Parliament can table amendments to proposed legislation. No different to the UK - especially opposition - MPs then, which is presumably how the government likes it. You infer that the UK form of democracy is better but what about the fact that a single party government can be formed by a party securing less than 50% of votes cast? What about the fact that a vote cast for an opposition party in a Labour/ Tory stronghold is effectively meaningless? What about the fact that an completely unelected second chamber can propose new legislation and block legislation from the lower chamber. Hardly democratic, is it? As is clear, there are different forms of democratic government. There are pros and cons associated with them all. You can continue with pretence that the UK form is superior if you like.

Can the Commission pass new legislation itself? No! It works on researching and drafting prospective legislation in the same way the UK Civil Service does.

The UK is in a difficult place (of its own making). It's certainly true that hard-line Unionists will not accept the current Protocol, but it's less clear that this is the prevailing view amongst the general public in NI. The majority of the Assembly and business leaders favour it. I'm not normally in favour of referendums but one could be held on this issue. If the vote was in favour of keeping the Protocol, there would be enormous moral and public pressure on the DUP and its' allies to accept it. A 'Reject' vote would mean the EU would come under similar pressure to renegotiate.

Yes. Thanks Typo. "... do NOT govern ..." I agree entirely. Facts appear to be an irrelevant to Brexiters as is the ability to take any accountability and responsibility for what they voted for

But the Commission is not a legislative body. To argue that EU states are governed by the Commission is like arguing that the UK is governed by the Civil Service. The Commission and Civil Service undoubtedly both have an influence but they do govern.

Charles is, of course, entitled to an opinion like anyone else however, the problem is that, as heir to the throne, his opinion is widely publicised and the government have to address it. I remember in the '80s and '90s, ministers complaining about the volume of letters he was sending on trivial matters e.g. his view from Buckingham Palace would be spoiled if a building was erected. Joe Public would receive a cursory 'The Minister thanks you for your letter ...' type reply but because it was Charles, a fully researched reply would have to be sent. He should refrain from commenting on matters if there is a chance that his views are made public.

Another step along the path to Global Britain' .... sorry, I meant 'Insular England'.

Two free trade deals with Australia and NZ and a digital trade agreement with Singapore. Not much to crow about. The rest of the world would far rather have a trade deal with the EU than the UK. A feeling no doubt enhanced by the fact that the current UK government has shown that it cannot be trusted.

Article 16 does not abrogate the Protocol or the wider Agreement, it merely allows the two sides time to try to find a solution to a particular problem. If they can't, the matter goes to arbitration by an international body. The bottom line is that if the UK unilaterally breaks the protocol (or the wider Agreement) at any point it will be in breach of international law.

I think that you only need look through this thread to find plenty of examples of whining Brexiters.

That wouldn't satisfy me but each to their own????

How did they do that? Then he made a bad decision and was incompetent. For the umpteenth time, the DUP made known their objections to a border down the Irish Sea way before January 2020. Johnson chose to ignore this warning. It was not difficult to see what the reaction of the DUP would be to this snub but, nevertheless, Johnson ploughed ahead. I'd imagine that the EU side were all too aware of the potential problems but what were they meant to do? If they refused to sign because of reservations about what might happen in NI, they would be accused of trying to keep the UK in the EU and/or interfering in UK domestic politics. Brexiters would probably have self-combusted if that scenario had occurred. What workable solutions? It's all about the EU applying the terms of the Agreement. The idea that the EU is a dictatorship is complete and utter nonsense. Again, paraphrasing a previous post, there are two EU institutions with legislative powers. The first (the European Council) comprises of the Heads of Government from the member state; the second consists of MPs who are elected by the electorate in the member states and sit in the European Parliament. How is that undemocratic, let alone a dictatorship?

Very surreal. You'll have to explain that one to me.

I don't know what lead you to that conclusion but apology accepted. Wrong again, I'm afraid. I asked a Rumanian friend and he couldn't help as he'd never claimed benefits anywhere. Maybe there are a few Brits who could advise about the relative ease of claiming benefits in the UK and the various EU states?

That's your opinion. Mine is different. I guess that the legal bods will decide who of us is right. From 1996 to 2014, the UK was forced to enact +/-1.5% of EU legislation against its' will: It comes down to a value judgement i.e. whether you think that regaining 1.5% more sovereignty is worth all this hassle. I don't. I assume that you do. Regarding the control of borders. The UK needs to import labour. It appears to me that we are merely substituting EU labour for, say, Canadian labour. Again, it comes down to a value judgement. You may think this valuable and worth the ongoing hassle, I don't.

The UK would be in breach of international law if it unilaterally abrogated the NI Protocol and, by extension, the Withdrawal Agreement. However, it is perfectly entitled to invoke Article 16. Both sides would then try to find a solution. If this is not possible, the matter then goes to the Joint Committee, which is comprised in equal part of representatives from the EU and the UK. If they are unable to agree a solution, the matter is further escalated to an international court. It's unclear to me which international court this is, and what powers of enforcement it might have? (For example, my layman's interpretation is that judgements by the International Court of Arbitration are not legally binding, whereas those made by the International Court of Justice are). The EU is perfectly entitled to apply the letter of the law. The UK government's inability and/or unwillingness to comply with its' obligations is the problem.

"I am standing on a platform of increased duplicity and dishonesty" Who could resist voting for a politician like that?????