Just read an interesting piece about the Morrisons "non-EU seasoning" debacle. Apparently this is UK labelling law - primary ingredients that are not local must be marked as "non-EU".
Mozzas are changing the label to explain this, but they can't change either the "non-EU" wording or the font size both of which are required by UK law.
Suspect the appropriate buyer will already be onto whichever meat processor supplies this product with instructions to source different salt and pepper that won't need said labelling...
You missed out the best bit. It's not UK Law, it's former EU Law that we teleported into UK Law a couple of year's ago to (make sure we did not lose any of it / defang the 'Brexit will lower standards" allegations). FBPErs maintain their desperation to have a go at the UK regardless, and got in a huge flap. That's where my Q about the EuCo e-border system came from - media lines blaming the UK for problems when it is late / falls over are already being stoked.
It is perhaps the most absurd aspect of the furore that while Twitter users screeched over Morrisons’ “exclusion of EU condiments”, in reality, the supermarket was following rules laid down in… Brussels.
For under EU labelling law – which the UK transposed into British law after Brexit – any ‘British’ marked food must clearly state “non-EU” against “primary” ingredients that are not local. For Morrisons and its salt and pepper chicken, this means its non-EU origin seasoning must be clearly shown at 75% of the size of the word “British”.
I didn't miss it. As with everything UK law is EU law is UK law. We remain absolutely aligned with the EEA despite the huge barriers to trade we have put up. We could have had a big bonfire of such laws we no longer want / need, but haven't...
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
There was no need for immediate challenge. What we have now is inertia, which is way worse than the (possibly slightly faulty) checks and balances we had in place yesterday. However, inertia helps Paterson, and dare I mention it, Johnson, so all is good.
All round a good thing. The public is wise to Johnson's honesty issues but his all round sleaziness is often camouflaged by his buffoonery. This is a timely reminder that behind the slapstick and smile is a nasty self serving egotist
Just read an interesting piece about the Morrisons "non-EU seasoning" debacle. Apparently this is UK labelling law - primary ingredients that are not local must be marked as "non-EU".
Mozzas are changing the label to explain this, but they can't change either the "non-EU" wording or the font size both of which are required by UK law.
Suspect the appropriate buyer will already be onto whichever meat processor supplies this product with instructions to source different salt and pepper that won't need said labelling...
It also had the bonus of winding up the FBPE head cases on social media so was not at all bad. Many threatening to never shop again in a shop they never visit. A bit like Rachael Swindon threatening to cancel the purchase of a portfolio of houses from Savills when one of their employees was racist on twitter.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
I refer you to the answer given by T May. Brexit means Brexit.
They got it done, and now they have to protect it from the French, the EU, Labour, Remoaners, the Woke, etc, etc.
I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
Energy derived from coal in the UK today is at zero according to Sky just now
Coal in the UK is over
When the lights go out things will change. Producing your own is good for the environment overall, just think of the pollution created importing all that tat from China for example.
Coal is not coming back and I am surprised you think it is
Apart from anything else, it is politically impossible as every party in the UK oppose coal extraction
AIUI at the moment the Conservative Govt is in favour of the new Cumbrian mine.
Although our PM is saying 'Nothing to do with me Guv.; I'm only the Prime Minister.'
Isn't the Cumbrian mine for steel and not power generation?
Coal is needed for the next few years for steel. That's not it coming back.
Its worth noting that steel-grade coal and coal for burning in power plants are two very different products that are not interchangeable.
While that's true, and more than nit picking, it's still coal extraction.
Do you mean in terms of the mine having a CO2 footprint? If we don't mine coking coal, others will.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
I think if judicial review were available sometime would have said so by now. I assume the reason it isn't is because this is parliament.
I don't think Parliamentary Privilege covers the way they run their organisation.
I just saw that the patterson story was still No.1 on BBC News this morning. I asked my wife, who has little interest in politics but generally follows the news, what she thought of it. She didn't even have the vaguest idea of what has happened. I explained, and she just rolled her eyes, as if to say it was all to be expected: Just business as usual.
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
Just read an interesting piece about the Morrisons "non-EU seasoning" debacle. Apparently this is UK labelling law - primary ingredients that are not local must be marked as "non-EU".
Mozzas are changing the label to explain this, but they can't change either the "non-EU" wording or the font size both of which are required by UK law.
Suspect the appropriate buyer will already be onto whichever meat processor supplies this product with instructions to source different salt and pepper that won't need said labelling...
It also had the bonus of winding up the FBPE head cases on social media so was not at all bad. Many threatening to never shop again in a shop they never visit. A bit like Rachael Swindon threatening to cancel the purchase of a portfolio of houses from Savills when one of their employees was racist on twitter.
I always giggle at the "I'll never show here / read this / buy this again" brigade. Nobody cares how self-righteous you are. And the impact on the company?
I used to work for Nestle (boo hiss). People would boycott our products because Vevey HQ said some bad things about water and some Nestle company half the world away did genuinely Bad Things about baby formula.
As I told them, the impact to the business of your boycott is so close to zero as makes no difference.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
It's a pity we're playing chess though.....
EuCo is a procedural bureaucracy. Playing chess with detail and balance thereof is how they proceed through life.
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
The news cycle may well move on but yesterday was a bleak day for honesty and integrity and shamed the conservative party, or at least 250 of its mps
Even Paterson voted for it when he should have had the decency not to vote
Chris Bryant, chair of the standards committee, wound things up. More in sorrow than in anger. The process had been absolutely transparent. It had moved at Paterson’s pace. His witnesses had been heard. And he’d had right of reply at various stages along the way. It was calm, forensic and devastating.
Paterson, who had been sitting wordlessly on the Conservative benches throughout, looked as if the penny had finally dropped – and he had begun to question his innocence.
Though not enough to vote against himself. Which was just as well as the government only won its three-line whip by 18 votes. There were a few Tories that had voted against the amendment and more that had abstained. And most of those who had voted for it had done so knowing they had sold what remained of their souls.
Voting against a three-line whip normally has consequences. We've seen one bag-carrier forced out; I wonder if action will be taken against other MP's. Tissue Price for example.
It will be interesting to look at how ReformUK do in the Bexley by election; to see what effect this will have on the tories. My guess is probably very little, but I may be wrong.
I just saw that the patterson story was still No.1 on BBC News this morning. I asked my wife, who has little interest in politics but generally follows the news, what she thought of it. She didn't even have the vaguest idea of what has happened. I explained, and she just rolled her eyes, as if to say it was all to be expected: Just business as usual.
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
But in a world of headlines no one is interested in the detail anyway. This has distilled down to 'Government change rules to protect one of Johnson's cronies'.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
I just saw that the patterson story was still No.1 on BBC News this morning. I asked my wife, who has little interest in politics but generally follows the news, what she thought of it. She didn't even have the vaguest idea of what has happened. I explained, and she just rolled her eyes, as if to say it was all to be expected: Just business as usual.
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
Dodgy Tory MP got let off by his mates. How complicated is that?
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
I just saw that the patterson story was still No.1 on BBC News this morning. I asked my wife, who has little interest in politics but generally follows the news, what she thought of it. She didn't even have the vaguest idea of what has happened. I explained, and she just rolled her eyes, as if to say it was all to be expected: Just business as usual.
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
But in a world of headlines no one is interested in the detail anyway. This has distilled down to 'Government change rules to protect one of Johnson's cronies'.
And everyone shrugs their shoulders.
Don't underestimate the damage Corbyn did to the labour party. He (and his people) aren't too far behind the sensible looking Starmer. Patterson may have had some dodgy dealings with Randox, but it is only a couple of months since Richard Burgon called for reparations to be paid to the taliban and the deputy labour party leader called tories scum. Maybe it is a case of people will choose the party they percieve to be corrupt, over the one they percieve as dangerous.
I just saw that the patterson story was still No.1 on BBC News this morning. I asked my wife, who has little interest in politics but generally follows the news, what she thought of it. She didn't even have the vaguest idea of what has happened. I explained, and she just rolled her eyes, as if to say it was all to be expected: Just business as usual.
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
Dodgy Tory MP got let off by his mates. How complicated is that?
£100k a year for services rendered is also a nice, round, easily-understood figure. Might even fit on the side of a bus.
I just saw that the patterson story was still No.1 on BBC News this morning. I asked my wife, who has little interest in politics but generally follows the news, what she thought of it. She didn't even have the vaguest idea of what has happened. I explained, and she just rolled her eyes, as if to say it was all to be expected: Just business as usual.
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
Tory broke the rules and should have been sacked. Tories voted to ignore it to save him. These Tories are corrupt.
There, that ought to capture the spirit of if, if not the accuracy of the nuance. The last four words are spot on though.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
You can get very silly when your boys' backs are against the wall.
The fact that Whittingdale is the appointed architect of change, on its own, dovetails nicely into the notion that we are taking our first baby steps towards Putin's Russia. Gathering opposition politicians at football stadiums probably comes later.
Did someone brush your fur the wrong way this morning?
I commented only on my impression of Bryant on R4 this morning. It reminds me of the occasion when Jenny Jones compared the Met to the Syrian Secret Police.
I'm told his speech is better, so Ill go and listen to it.
FWIW, I think the forum for challenge to the process should probably be a Judicial Review, which I think could apply.
Looking at the history of the current regulatory setup it is inadequate and clogged up with trivia. Look for example at the attempted fuss about Ministerial attendances at the Brits Awards not being declared, or perhaps the one about Jeremy Corbyn's legal funding from Unite to fight his disciplinary action from the Labour Party.
I think if judicial review were available sometime would have said so by now. I assume the reason it isn't is because this is parliament.
I don't think Parliamentary Privilege covers the way they run their organisation.
The actions of a committee are the acts of the House, though.
Genuinely don't know what the answer is but there must be one, or why hasn't Paterson rushed off to apply for certiorari or however judicial review works?
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Caught up with Angela Raygun’s sojourn at PMQs yesterday. Surprisingly impressive!
I wonder if she could play the Prezza role in a Reeves-Phillipson Labour administration?
Completely surprising. Gobsmacking almost. The twin pronged attack from Peter Bottomley and Angela Raynor was quite devastating. Perhaps a template for what you suggest?
(Note for Felix; I DO realise Bottomley is a Tory)
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
Making a comparison in one area is not the same as saying it’s the same in all areas. Give it time though..
I'm wondering if one or two PBers (not MattW) are desperate to become MPs before the gravy train derails. The level of support for the Johnson regime here is astonishing.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
They're falling from the 52k mini peak but maintaining in the c. 40k new cases a day range that is still way too high. Hospitalisation too high. The genuine pressure on the NHS that could cause it to collapse very real.
That is why they have both Plan B and apparently Plan C. Not because I am "hysterical" as you kindly put it. Because the NHS management is "hysterical".
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.
Wow.
HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
Daily Mail commentary is rarely positive about anything and nor are the comments below the line. The Daily Mail also now has an editor more hostile to the Tory leadership and less pro Brexit.
As I said last night they may rant for a few days but you can count on one hand the numbers of Mail readers who will move from voting to Boris to voting for Starmer over this. Once the news cycle has moved on they will be back voting Tory within a week.
They can *abstain*. All you need is some - not even a large percentage - of 2019 Tories sitting on your hands in disgust and you are history.
They won't abstain.
One look at the prospect of the woke Remainer Starmer as PM and the anti woke, diehard Leaver DM readers will be back voting Tory again in the ballot box in 2 or 3 years time. This will blow over within a week.
DM readers just like to be angry at everything and anyone most of the time, that is half the point of the DM and its editors are good at stirring up the rants
Only diehard woke remainders care about corruption ? They seem to be surprisingly well represented among Daily Mail readers.
They are still not going to vote for Starmer though or abstain and let him become PM
I notice that inside of 24 hours we've gone from "If his constituents dislike his behaviour, they will vote for his removal," to "Those who voted Tory [implicitly including Paterson's voters] will not let Starmer in."
Which is it? Will they vote based on their local MP or based on parties and those party's policies? If the former, the larger picture at Westminster is irrelevant. If the latter, the feedback mechanism you proposed is not valid. Can't maintain both to be true.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
People have gone a bit crazy. I think there's a big element of Boris/Brexit derangement syndrome too. The people agitating for it don't really care about the virus, they just want to oppose the government. There's so many other valid areas to do that on, picking COVID just seems a bit mad, especially as cases are falling.
On Tuesday when we had the delayed deaths number rolled in my colleague pointed out that the lockdown fascists would use it without context to agitate for restrictions, so it came to pass.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
So why the hell didn't it get invented?? it's a full four years since the actual referendum, and we knew well before it something of the sort was needed.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Sometimes you get into a situation, perhaps not of your making, that is really hard to get out of. That's Brexit. Everything was stuck. Frost and Johnson got us out, with a very imperfect deal. Yes they trumpeted it etc, and its facile to mock that, but at the end of the day it was pragmatic politics. Now that the issues are pressing, we move on. Did you expect the TCA to be the last ever word on the matter? Of course not.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
So why the hell didn't it get invented?? it's a full four years since the actual referendum, and we knew well before it something of the sort was needed.
Because the only way it can be invented is both sides want to compromise. One side didn't.
Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?
If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.
Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.
This morning on R4 Bryant sounded rather hysterical - "this is like Russia", he said.
Have to admit I'm not aware of opposition MPs imprisoned without due trial by the government, a long list of journos and activists killed on Govt orders and so on.
But if Bryant knows where the secret graves are, perhaps he could publish the locations.
Making a comparison in one area is not the same as saying it’s the same in all areas. Give it time though..
I'm wondering if one or two PBers (not MattW) are desperate to become MPs before the gravy train derails. The level of support for the Johnson regime here is astonishing.
The usual affectation here (or perhaps it's for real) is astonishment that anyone would get out of bed for £80k plus hugely generous expenses.
If all you have got is that plus inheriting the family leather business plus whatever you pull down on marrying a Ridley you can see how ends meeting would be an issue.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
So why the hell didn't it get invented?? it's a full four years since the actual referendum, and we knew well before it something of the sort was needed.
Because the only way it can be invented is both sides want to compromise. One side didn't.
We have a whacking great exit treaty. That by any definition is a compromise. And ome massively trumpeted by Mr Johnson and his allies.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
So why the hell didn't it get invented?? it's a full four years since the actual referendum, and we knew well before it something of the sort was needed.
Because the only way it can be invented is both sides want to compromise. One side didn't.
We have a whacking great exit treaty. That by any definition is a compromise. And ome massively trumpeted by Mr Johnson and his allies.
Indeed but the EU wanted to protect "the integrity of the Single Market".
The only way this is going to work, as I've been saying for years and is about to happen, is to realise that NI doesn't work with "integrity". The Good Friday Agreement was never based upon integrity and getting 100% of what you wanted, it was based upon compromise and fudge.
We need a Schrodinger's deal where NI is both in the Single Market and the UK and with no border checks either way. That's going to lead to a lack of "integrity" at the border - tough shit.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Is that cervixes or crevices?
Cervices if you're a "woke" nazi, cervixes if you're an "anti-woke" nazi. Choose your side, or we'll chalk you down as a "neutral" nazi.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
We need to throw money at a digital border because the technology to run it does not exist. We need to throw money at Customs because we do not have the computer system or inspection posts or border guards to deliver the Brexit rules we keep delaying.
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
That is actually blatantly pro Patterson. No reference to his repeated advocacy while concealing his links, or voting in his own case, and so on. And if it comes out with that conclusion ...
Edit: and @Tissue_Price is quoted, too. Good for him.
"We could slip into being a corrupt country," says Lord Evans, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, after yesterday's controversial vote.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
We need to throw money at a digital border because the technology to run it does not exist. We need to throw money at Customs because we do not have the computer system or inspection posts or border guards to deliver the Brexit rules we keep delaying.
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
There are people who'd blame the lamppost if they reverse into it. Despite it being there all the time.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
We need to throw money at a digital border because the technology to run it does not exist. We need to throw money at Customs because we do not have the computer system or inspection posts or border guards to deliver the Brexit rules we keep delaying.
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
They're not unrealistic.
Lets put it another way. If Article 16 is invoked and the Protocol is suspended, then what do you think is going to come out of the forthcoming negotiations, if not something along the lines of what I'm proposing?
Not what should come out of the negotiations, since we know Boris is never in a million years going to sign up to what you want. But what will?
That is actually blatantly pro Patterson. No reference to his repeated advocacy while concealing his links, or voting in his own case, and so on. And if it comes out with that conclusion ...
That vote was an unforced error. His complaint is that the rules of natural justice do not apply to his case. There are two rules of natural justice, and one of them is nemo iudex in causa sua.
That is actually blatantly pro Patterson. No reference to his repeated advocacy while concealing his links, or voting in his own case, and so on. And if it comes out with that conclusion ...
Edit: and @Tissue_Price is quoted, too. Good for him.
I think this extract gives a better interpretation of the article:-
Had the Government proposed a package to the chamber whereby the right to recall be extended at the same as its standards system be reformed, it might just have pulled off a successful political manoeuvre.
Probably not – since MPs would be unlikely to back a more permissive recall trigger, even if balanced by a higher threshold. But the Government would at least have had more political cover than it has this evening.
The sum of yesterday’s Commons debate and vote, whereby it moved to shield a Tory MP accused of corruption without offering voters any new safeguards against it, is that the Conservative Party is now pinned down by hostile fire in a cul-de-sac of its own creation.
What was meant to be an escape route – the creation of a new Select Committee that would consider Paterson’s individual case while also reviewing the whole standards system – risks becoming a Tory killing ground with no exit.
For Keir Starmer, the opportunity to revive the charge of “Tory sleaze” and get on the front foot is too glittering an opportunity to resist. The other Opposition parties will
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
People have gone a bit crazy. I think there's a big element of Boris/Brexit derangement syndrome too. The people agitating for it don't really care about the virus, they just want to oppose the government. There's so many other valid areas to do that on, picking COVID just seems a bit mad, especially as cases are falling.
On Tuesday when we had the delayed deaths number rolled in my colleague pointed out that the lockdown fascists would use it without context to agitate for restrictions, so it came to pass.
Absolutely. As you say, there are so many clear avenues for attacking this pisspoor government, politicising covid data seems ludicrous. You see it on here too: it’s stupid, hysterical behaviour.
That is actually blatantly pro Patterson. No reference to his repeated advocacy while concealing his links, or voting in his own case, and so on. And if it comes out with that conclusion ...
That vote was an unforced error. His complaint is that the rules of natural justice do not apply to his case. There are two rules of natural justice, and one of them is nemo iudex in causa sua.
It does hint at a an attitude of mind to the proprieties.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Sometimes you get into a situation, perhaps not of your making, that is really hard to get out of. That's Brexit. Everything was stuck. Frost and Johnson got us out, with a very imperfect deal. Yes they trumpeted it etc, and its facile to mock that, but at the end of the day it was pragmatic politics. Now that the issues are pressing, we move on. Did you expect the TCA to be the last ever word on the matter? Of course not.
Last ever or last of the same year are quite different things.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Spot on. This hysterical headline-chasing simply serves to take the pressure off the vax rollout. It’s deeply dissatisfactory behaviour.
That is actually blatantly pro Patterson. No reference to his repeated advocacy while concealing his links, or voting in his own case, and so on. And if it comes out with that conclusion ...
Edit: and @Tissue_Price is quoted, too. Good for him.
I think this extract gives a better interpretation of the article:-
Had the Government proposed a package to the chamber whereby the right to recall be extended at the same as its standards system be reformed, it might just have pulled off a successful political manoeuvre.
Probably not – since MPs would be unlikely to back a more permissive recall trigger, even if balanced by a higher threshold. But the Government would at least have had more political cover than it has this evening.
The sum of yesterday’s Commons debate and vote, whereby it moved to shield a Tory MP accused of corruption without offering voters any new safeguards against it, is that the Conservative Party is now pinned down by hostile fire in a cul-de-sac of its own creation.
What was meant to be an escape route – the creation of a new Select Committee that would consider Paterson’s individual case while also reviewing the whole standards system – risks becoming a Tory killing ground with no exit.
For Keir Starmer, the opportunity to revive the charge of “Tory sleaze” and get on the front foot is too glittering an opportunity to resist. The other Opposition parties will
Fair enough; I was thinking about what the article omits, carefully.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
My sarcasm meter must be on the blink. This is a good thing, right?
Offering HPV to anyone is wrong. We should be offering the vaccine instead.
Worth noting that pre-vaccine (and for those too old to have had the vaccine) offering (and accepting) HPV is quite a common occurence. You might say mainstream behaviour, in fact.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
We need to throw money at a digital border because the technology to run it does not exist. We need to throw money at Customs because we do not have the computer system or inspection posts or border guards to deliver the Brexit rules we keep delaying.
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
They're not unrealistic.
Lets put it another way. If Article 16 is invoked and the Protocol is suspended, then what do you think is going to come out of the forthcoming negotiations, if not something along the lines of what I'm proposing?
Not what should come out of the negotiations, since we know Boris is never in a million years going to sign up to what you want. But what will?
Its unrealistic to think that your red lines are sacrosanct but none of the counterparty red lines are the same. The integrity of the Single Market is a red line that they will not break - apparently the integrity of the UK was a red line we were prepared to break. So the power balance in the negotiation sits with them, not us. They have already seen how much we are prepared to throw away.
As for what Boris will or won't do, lets not be judgemental. Being charitable he has demonstrated a remarkable flexibility of both ideas and principles. You can't say "he won't do that" because he absolutely will if he thinks it will be good to the only party that matters - him.
Boris can defeat the EU, remove their trade barriers, bonfire all the red tape AND have the Tory press cheering him on. By doing the thing you personally don't want so project that he won't do in a million years.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
My sarcasm meter must be on the blink. This is a good thing, right?
Offering HPV to anyone is wrong. We should be offering the vaccine instead.
Worth noting that pre-vaccine (and for those too old to have had the vaccine) offering (and accepting) HPV is quite a common occurence. You might say mainstream behaviour, in fact.
Wow, these threads are coming thick and fast. Barely time to go off topic.
Some really good medical news for a change: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59148620 The HPV vaccine has cut cervical cancer rates by nearly 90%. I think that the government should be making a fuss about this as yet another example of vaccines saving lives. I know that this is approaching anti vaxxers with reason which is probably futile but its got to be worth a go.
I remember all the fuss about sexualisation of children when this was introduced - those people missing the point that it's obviously preferable to vaccinate before exposure so the earlier (within reason) the better.
Sounds like the vaccine should be offered to all people with cervices...
Is that cervixes or crevices?
Cervices if you're a "woke" nazi, cervixes if you're an "anti-woke" nazi. Choose your side, or we'll chalk you down as a "neutral" nazi.
In any case, one needs to be more specific; just about all of us have cervices atop ouir shoulders, hence cervical vetebrae.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
We need to throw money at a digital border because the technology to run it does not exist. We need to throw money at Customs because we do not have the computer system or inspection posts or border guards to deliver the Brexit rules we keep delaying.
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
They're not unrealistic.
Lets put it another way. If Article 16 is invoked and the Protocol is suspended, then what do you think is going to come out of the forthcoming negotiations, if not something along the lines of what I'm proposing?
Not what should come out of the negotiations, since we know Boris is never in a million years going to sign up to what you want. But what will?
Its unrealistic to think that your red lines are sacrosanct but none of the counterparty red lines are the same. The integrity of the Single Market is a red line that they will not break - apparently the integrity of the UK was a red line we were prepared to break. So the power balance in the negotiation sits with them, not us. They have already seen how much we are prepared to throw away.
As for what Boris will or won't do, lets not be judgemental. Being charitable he has demonstrated a remarkable flexibility of both ideas and principles. You can't say "he won't do that" because he absolutely will if he thinks it will be good to the only party that matters - him.
Boris can defeat the EU, remove their trade barriers, bonfire all the red tape AND have the Tory press cheering him on. By doing the thing you personally don't want so project that he won't do in a million years.
It is absolutely realistic to think that, if you have the power to force the counterparty to break one of their red lines. That is how the EU forced Theresa May to break her red lines, because she was weak, but now the table has been turned around.
The issue is that each party has a hierarchy of red lines and the most important to the EU [since Ireland can and will veto everything else] is no border within Ireland - not the integrity of the Single Market. The UK's most important red line is the sovereignty of the UK.
My proposed compromise is the only thing that suits both parties most important red line, which means the EU's secondary red line will have to go. Because if A16 is invoked and there's no replacement for the Protocol then there is no integrity anyway.
So long as the UK stands firm the EU faces two choices: No compromise and no integrity, or compromise and make the best of a bad situation with regards to integrity. The latter is the only realistic outcome, no matter how much you falsely claim its impossible.
His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter. And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.
I see Paterson is saying that the process of having his lobbying examined was a major contributor to his wife’s suicide while also saying that he would act in exactly the same way if he had the time again.
Apart from all the other egregiousness, he strikes me as a deeply stupid man.
Suicide is an appalling thing to hit a family, a husband, even one as stupid or sleazy as Paterson. I have great sympathy for him on that.
But. But.
He now says this investigation was a factor in her suicide. It is suggested that this is what led to it. Leaving aside the fact that personal tragedy is not a reason for stopping the process of justice, this does not appear to be consistent with what he said at the time.
He says that he had "no inkling" of what was to happen. When they were looking for her he & his son "never ever considered what actually happened". He goes on to say "we had absolutely no warning of this". He talks about the mental impact of Covid (which she caught) on her, her disappointment at the cancellation of the Grand National. He mentions the pressures in his life in passing but not the investigation. He talks about her anxiety, says that he was unaware of the signs of someone in distress & that had he had more training he might have spotted the signs & been able to help his wife.
It is very moving. But not really compatible with what he is now saying - that the investigation into his behaviour was a cause of his wife's suicide. If he did not know then why she did what she did, how can he be so certain now?
And if he is not certain - and who can ever really understand what drives people to do this unless they explain themselves in advance - using his wife's tragedy to avoid responsibility for his actions feels, well .... I don't know what words to use, really.
Having suffered suicide in my family, I thought at the time his interview was a brave attempt to get people to be more sensitive about the pressures which those close to us can be under so that help can be sought.
Now I wonder whether we are being cynically played. We have another woman, the Standards Commissioner, being accused of being unfair, biased, incompetent & being pressured out of her job in an unsubtle attempt to protect Paterson from the consequences of his actions. No-one seems to care about the stress on her. It reflects very badly indeed on all of them.
Still when the prevailing view is that corruption does not exist if Tory MPs say it doesn't (ca. @HYUFD) & politics is not a moral philosophy class, with voters not minding politicians wetting their beaks as they'd like to do it too (ca. @isam), then there seems little point debating it further.
We must accept I suppose that we now have a Berlusconi-style government (corrupt, incompetent, mainly interested in party advantage) led by a man with a rackety private life & scant regard for morality or rules. Politics seems largely pointless, especially with an Opposition barely capable of taking the skin off a rice pudding.
Personally I'm just hoping we'll soon have the Mediterranean weather & style to go with the Italianisation of our public life.
Looks like the Cunning Plan has not even lasted 24 hours. I'm sure ministers who had to make excruciating defences of it yesterday and this morning will be delighted that their sacrifices served such a noble and lasting goal. https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456210295333040135
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I don't know. I'm hardly paying attention to it.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
Focusing on the vaccine is definitely right - regardless of how one reads the figures, there is plenty of Covid still around and plenty of people on ventilators. Not going all out to promote boosters (and IMO vaccination of children) is a collective own goals - and that's nothing to do with being pro- or anti-lockdown.
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Is that a parody? He cannot have been so robotic surely?
It was the only point in the interview when he sounded comfortable.
When he says "delivered Brexit" does he mean the act of leaving the EU? Or the Brexit deal that its chief negotiator is in Paris to try and amend because of the appallingly poor negotiation carried out by Lord Frost?
You mean the fantastically good negotiation carried out by Lord Frost, don't you?
If Frost had stuck with Robbins former arrangements there'd have been no Article 16 and no way out of the backstop. That Frost managed to get Article 16 into the arrangements, which can now be used to get a better deal is a masterclass in how you do good negotiations.
And contrary to the myth some like to spread, its not "bad faith" either since the conditions to trigger Article 16 have been met. That people foresaw the fact that the Protocol would lead to problems doesn't mean those problems aren't a trigger for Article 16 - nowhere in the conditions for Article 16 does it say the problems have to be unforeseen.
How odd. If the TCA is so good why is Frost out to renegotiate it? Why is Frost attacking it?
And as for A16 it is what happens *after* we inevitab;y trigger it which nobody has answers to. "Just trigger A16!!!" seems to be the cry as if that is the final play. It is just the start of a whole new process of once against trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
Two very simple answers to that.
Firstly the TCA is flawed, but the backstop and all other proposals were flawed. However the TCA unlike all other proposals has Article 16 which means that if its flaws come to life then it can be triggered neutering the flaws.
A flawed treaty with safeguards is far, far better than a flawed treaty without safeguards, can't you accept that basic point?
As for after A16 [or preferably before and after the mere threat of it] the solution is to negotiate a new arrangement. However in this new negotiation we won't be subject to Article 50's ticking clock or any other issues and we already have the TCA negotiated so we don't just hold all the cards we've picked up another couple of Aces since the last negotiations.
Good, we are in agreement. We need to "negotiate a new arrangement" because the existing one - the one negotiated by Frost - doesn't work. There is some flexibility on why it doesn't work - and I accept to a point your arguments about A50 and timings. But it clearly doesn't work, hence the need to negotiate a replacement for the "oven ready" deal.
I'm sorry my mistake the TCA does work. Its the Protocol that needs replacing.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
Trusted Trader schemes can't be implemented for every trader of every type of product. It isn't their fault, the ask is impossible and unworkable. Same as the "techno-border" we proposed with technology that doesn't yet exist.
Sure it can work. Trust every trader and the problem goes away. Punish any trader that breaks that trust.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Technology is marvellous. Had they said "we can have a completely open border once we perfect the technology" we could have then thrown £dollah into R&D to develop it.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
No you're wrong. We don't need to throw any money at it.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
We need to throw money at a digital border because the technology to run it does not exist. We need to throw money at Customs because we do not have the computer system or inspection posts or border guards to deliver the Brexit rules we keep delaying.
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
They're not unrealistic.
Lets put it another way. If Article 16 is invoked and the Protocol is suspended, then what do you think is going to come out of the forthcoming negotiations, if not something along the lines of what I'm proposing?
Not what should come out of the negotiations, since we know Boris is never in a million years going to sign up to what you want. But what will?
Its unrealistic to think that your red lines are sacrosanct but none of the counterparty red lines are the same. The integrity of the Single Market is a red line that they will not break - apparently the integrity of the UK was a red line we were prepared to break. So the power balance in the negotiation sits with them, not us. They have already seen how much we are prepared to throw away.
As for what Boris will or won't do, lets not be judgemental. Being charitable he has demonstrated a remarkable flexibility of both ideas and principles. You can't say "he won't do that" because he absolutely will if he thinks it will be good to the only party that matters - him.
Boris can defeat the EU, remove their trade barriers, bonfire all the red tape AND have the Tory press cheering him on. By doing the thing you personally don't want so project that he won't do in a million years.
It is absolutely realistic to think that, if you have the power to force the counterparty to break one of their red lines. That is how the EU forced Theresa May to break her red lines, because she was weak, but now the table has been turned around.
The issue is that each party has a hierarchy of red lines and the most important to the EU [since Ireland can and will veto everything else] is no border within Ireland - not the integrity of the Single Market. The UK's most important red line is the sovereignty of the UK.
My proposed compromise is the only thing that suits both parties most important red line, which means the EU's secondary red line will have to go. Because if A16 is invoked and there's no replacement for the Protocol then there is no integrity anyway.
So long as the UK stands firm the EU faces two choices: No compromise and no integrity, or compromise and make the best of a bad situation with regards to integrity. The latter is the only realistic outcome, no matter how much you falsely claim its impossible.
Meh. A red line that you break isn't a red line. All negotiations, all negotiators worth their salt know both the value of each side's trades but also where the walk-away point is - the red line.
Again, there are no red lines for the UK. We did a deal which ended the UK free trade zone. Breaking up your own country so that you need an export license to sell products from one bit to another big is as big a tell as you can offer to the opposing negotiators as to your grasp on the negotiation.
We won't stand firm because we don't stand firm because we don't actually have any red lines we won't cross. They just need a "deal" they can sell to their voters, or if not that a threat that they can worry them about.
Looks like the Cunning Plan has not even lasted 24 hours. I'm sure ministers who had to make excruciating defences of it yesterday and this morning will be delighted that their sacrifices served such a noble and lasting goal. https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456210295333040135
You say "excruciating" I say - were they even defences? They were so nonsensical I am not sure leaving them behind is that embarrassing by itself.
By the way, on topic, my understanding is that Labour is making a serious effort in Bexley, and the LibDems are not going to throw the kitchen sink at it. The Tories will still win, but I expect the majority to be significantly down.
Looks like the Cunning Plan has not even lasted 24 hours. I'm sure ministers who had to make excruciating defences of it yesterday and this morning will be delighted that their sacrifices served such a noble and lasting goal. https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456210295333040135
I wonder what Mr Kwarteng will say. He was wheeled out to all but demand that the commissioner for standards resigns pronto only a little while ago on TV.
Graun feed:
'Asked whether Stone should resign, Kwarteng told Sky News:
I think it’s difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact that we’re reviewing the process, and we’re overturning and trying to reform this whole process, but it’s up to the commissioner to decide her position.
Asked what he meant by “decide her position”, Kwarteng said:
It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing, but I’m not saying she should resign.
“I’m not saying she should resign,” Kwarteng claimed. But it sounded very much as if he was, and that is how Labour interpreted his answers.'
I wonder what Mr Kwarteng will say. He was wheeled out to all but demand that the commissioner for standards resigns pronto only a little while ago on TV.
Looks like the Cunning Plan has not even lasted 24 hours. I'm sure ministers who had to make excruciating defences of it yesterday and this morning will be delighted that their sacrifices served such a noble and lasting goal. https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456210295333040135
I wonder what Mr Kwarteng will say. He was wheeled out to all but demand that the commissioner for standards resigns pronto only a little while ago on TV.
Graun feed:
'Asked whether Stone should resign, Kwarteng told Sky News:
I think it’s difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact that we’re reviewing the process, and we’re overturning and trying to reform this whole process, but it’s up to the commissioner to decide her position.
Asked what he meant by “decide her position”, Kwarteng said:
It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing, but I’m not saying she should resign.
“I’m not saying she should resign,” Kwarteng claimed. But it sounded very much as if he was, and that is how Labour interpreted his answers.'
People forget or perhaps they don't that at the height of the pandemic there was no surer contra-indicator of government policy than a minister explaining why something would or would not happen on the morning airwaves only for it not to or indeed to happen, sure as eggs is eggs, by that afternoon.
Kwasi Kwarteng told Sky News he didn't "feel shame at all" over yesterday's vote about three hours before the Jacob Rees-Mogg announced they were dropping it. What a Government. https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1456211931300257792
By the way, on topic, my understanding is that Labour is making a serious effort in Bexley, and the LibDems are not going to throw the kitchen sink at it. The Tories will still win, but I expect the majority to be significantly down.
The exact kind of co-operative campaigning we tried to organise in 2019 only to be shot down by angry Corbynites insisting the Resplendent One would be the only person anyone could vote for in any seat.
His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter. And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.
I see Paterson is saying that the process of having his lobbying examined was a major contributor to his wife’s suicide while also saying that he would act in exactly the same way if he had the time again.
Apart from all the other egregiousness, he strikes me as a deeply stupid man.
Suicide is an appalling thing to hit a family, a husband, even one as stupid or sleazy as Paterson. I have great sympathy for him on that.
But. But.
He now says this investigation was a factor in her suicide. It is suggested that this is what led to it. Leaving aside the fact that personal tragedy is not a reason for stopping the process of justice, this does not appear to be consistent with what he said at the time.
He says that he had "no inkling" of what was to happen. When they were looking for her he & his son "never ever considered what actually happened". He goes on to say "we had absolutely no warning of this". He talks about the mental impact of Covid (which she caught) on her, her disappointment at the cancellation of the Grand National. He mentions the pressures in his life in passing but not the investigation. He talks about her anxiety, says that he was unaware of the signs of someone in distress & that had he had more training he might have spotted the signs & been able to help his wife.
It is very moving. But not really compatible with what he is now saying - that the investigation into his behaviour was a cause of his wife's suicide. If he did not know then why she did what she did, how can he be so certain now?
And if he is not certain - and who can ever really understand what drives people to do this unless they explain themselves in advance - using his wife's tragedy to avoid responsibility for his actions feels, well .... I don't know what words to use, really.
Having suffered suicide in my family, I thought at the time his interview was a brave attempt to get people to be more sensitive about the pressures which those close to us can be under so that help can be sought.
Now I wonder whether we are being cynically played. We have another woman, the Standards Commissioner, being accused of being unfair, biased, incompetent & being pressured out of her job in an unsubtle attempt to protect Paterson from the consequences of his actions. No-one seems to care about the stress on her. It reflects very badly indeed on all of them.
Still when the prevailing view is that corruption does not exist if Tory MPs say it doesn't (ca. @HYUFD) & politics is not a moral philosophy class, with voters not minding politicians wetting their beaks as they'd like to do it too (ca. @isam), then there seems little point debating it further.
We must accept I suppose that we now have a Berlusconi-style government (corrupt, incompetent, mainly interested in party advantage) led by a man with a rackety private life & scant regard for morality or rules. Politics seems largely pointless, especially with an Opposition barely capable of taking the skin off a rice pudding.
Personally I'm just hoping we'll soon have the Mediterranean weather & style to go with the Italianisation of our public life.
Yes, I made the same point yesterday about the discrepancy between Paterson's current claim that the investigation contributed to his wife's suicide and his earlier statements. Something doesn't quite add up there, and I say that as someone who has also lost a spouse (though not to suicide).
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
They're falling from the 52k mini peak but maintaining in the c. 40k new cases a day range that is still way too high. Hospitalisation too high. The genuine pressure on the NHS that could cause it to collapse very real.
That is why they have both Plan B and apparently Plan C. Not because I am "hysterical" as you kindly put it. Because the NHS management is "hysterical".
What restrictions do you advocate immediately and to what level would the data need to fall for you to advocate the status quo?
So: 1. Tories have already dropped its 'overthrow the system to save our rights to be corrupt' plan they were whipped to vote for yesterday 2. This morning's body armour minister was out debasing himself to talk up a policy dropped before he finished speaking 3. We're all left with the stench of their corruption knowing they *wanted* to do this
All this will have done is strengthen the Independent Standards Commissioner. Which is great news as she goes after Number 10 for Flatgate.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
People have gone a bit crazy. I think there's a big element of Boris/Brexit derangement syndrome too. The people agitating for it don't really care about the virus, they just want to oppose the government. There's so many other valid areas to do that on, picking COVID just seems a bit mad, especially as cases are falling.
On Tuesday when we had the delayed deaths number rolled in my colleague pointed out that the lockdown fascists would use it without context to agitate for restrictions, so it came to pass.
One thing that hasn't sunk in is that as good as the current covid vaccines are, relative to other vaccines, they aren't really much good at preventing transmission. Covid is simply too easily spread for the current vaccines to hold it in check. The vaccines are useful for suppressing serious illness but we will likely incur a lot of cases no matter what.
Further restrictions like NPIs would have to be open-ended, because until we get better vaccines or good treatments we will face a flare up of covid each time we relax restrictions. So anyone arguing for mandatory masks, social distancing, or closing certain bits of the economy is effectively asking for those things to be done for a very long time, not a few weeks or months.
Can anyone explain the agitating over ‘Plan B’ in several corners of the press? Covid positive tests are falling, and have been falling for almost a fortnight - without any restrictions.
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
I assume the resignation of Jeremy Farrar. That or the 'increase' in cases yesterday over the day before...
Comments
“In our political system, an electoral mandate does not confer unlimited and untrammelled power.”
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1456194977478893568
They got it done, and now they have to protect it from the French, the EU, Labour, Remoaners, the Woke, etc, etc.
“It's time to re establish our commitment to credible, independent regulation of the ethical standards of public office holders.”
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1456195701407375360
'The principles require that ministers and MPs should show leadership in upholding ethical standards in public life
'I find it hard to see how yesterday's actions in any way meet that test'
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1456195915656613890
I wonder if she could play the Prezza role in a Reeves-Phillipson Labour administration?
I said yesterday that this story is too complicated for people outside the political world to follow, and that seems to be true. It differs from cash for questions and the expenses scandal where there is a simple narrative. In the brutal world of social media, there needs to be a quick hook. A story about a vote to review parliamentary procedures is not going to meet this test, and will be likely to be selected out of existence in the marketplace of news stories.
I used to work for Nestle (boo hiss). People would boycott our products because Vevey HQ said some bad things about water and some Nestle company half the world away did genuinely Bad Things about baby formula.
As I told them, the impact to the business of your boycott is so close to zero as makes no difference.
And the Protocol could have worked if the EU had shown good faith in implementing a Trusted Trader scheme etc but they haven't so its time to invoke A16 and replace it under A13.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48881008
Reeves, Phillipson, Rayner, Phillips, Nandy, Thornberry is a pretty good start.
Don't underestimate the damage Corbyn did to the labour party. He (and his people) aren't too far behind the sensible looking Starmer. Patterson may have had some dodgy dealings with Randox, but it is only a couple of months since Richard Burgon called for reparations to be paid to the taliban and the deputy labour party leader called tories scum. Maybe it is a case of people will choose the party they percieve to be corrupt, over the one they percieve as dangerous.
There, that ought to capture the spirit of if, if not the accuracy of the nuance. The last four words are spot on though.
Genuinely don't know what the answer is but there must be one, or why hasn't Paterson rushed off to apply for certiorari or however judicial review works?
Where has this latest bout of irrational panic come from?
(Note for Felix; I DO realise Bottomley is a Tory)
That is why they have both Plan B and apparently Plan C. Not because I am "hysterical" as you kindly put it. Because the NHS management is "hysterical".
Which is it? Will they vote based on their local MP or based on parties and those party's policies? If the former, the larger picture at Westminster is irrelevant. If the latter, the feedback mechanism you proposed is not valid. Can't maintain both to be true.
Your "technology that doesn't yet exist" line is silly, with that attitude the technology will never exist. Necessity is the mother of invention.
On Tuesday when we had the delayed deaths number rolled in my colleague pointed out that the lockdown fascists would use it without context to agitate for restrictions, so it came to pass.
I suppose you could make the argument of pre-emptive action in advance of winter, anticipating more social contact indoors, or the death numbers are still going up, as they catch-up with the latest peak in cases.
Would be much better if there was more attention paid to the vaccine. Immunising more people is the single most effective thing we can do.
The problem was that Brexiteers demanded the creation of this new technology, and then refused to delay implementation of the arrangements it would allow until it had been perfected...
If all you have got is that plus inheriting the family leather business plus whatever you pull down on marrying a Ridley you can see how ends meeting would be an issue.
The key is to compromise. You're far, far too purist.
Sometimes being stuck is better than the alternative...
The only way this is going to work, as I've been saying for years and is about to happen, is to realise that NI doesn't work with "integrity". The Good Friday Agreement was never based upon integrity and getting 100% of what you wanted, it was based upon compromise and fudge.
We need a Schrodinger's deal where NI is both in the Single Market and the UK and with no border checks either way. That's going to lead to a lack of "integrity" at the border - tough shit.
This is one of the biggest own goals I can recall no matter @HYUFD lame attempts to defend it
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1456185652429664258?t=2Bok1eq6y-lMcxGkOJriqA&s=19
When you say "compromise" you mean the EU accede to whatever it is we want this week. As someone who negotiates contracts professionally I can see exactly where you are going wrong - blame the counterparty for your own variables being unrealistic.
Edit: and @Tissue_Price is quoted, too. Good for him.
"People are looking at us and we can't assume our good name will be maintained."
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1456199750932484107
Lets put it another way. If Article 16 is invoked and the Protocol is suspended, then what do you think is going to come out of the forthcoming negotiations, if not something along the lines of what I'm proposing?
Not what should come out of the negotiations, since we know Boris is never in a million years going to sign up to what you want. But what will?
Had the Government proposed a package to the chamber whereby the right to recall be extended at the same as its standards system be reformed, it might just have pulled off a successful political manoeuvre.
Probably not – since MPs would be unlikely to back a more permissive recall trigger, even if balanced by a higher threshold. But the Government would at least have had more political cover than it has this evening.
The sum of yesterday’s Commons debate and vote, whereby it moved to shield a Tory MP accused of corruption without offering voters any new safeguards against it, is that the Conservative Party is now pinned down by hostile fire in a cul-de-sac of its own creation.
What was meant to be an escape route – the creation of a new Select Committee that would consider Paterson’s individual case while also reviewing the whole standards system – risks becoming a Tory killing ground with no exit.
For Keir Starmer, the opportunity to revive the charge of “Tory sleaze” and get on the front foot is too glittering an opportunity to resist. The other Opposition parties will
As for what Boris will or won't do, lets not be judgemental. Being charitable he has demonstrated a remarkable flexibility of both ideas and principles. You can't say "he won't do that" because he absolutely will if he thinks it will be good to the only party that matters - him.
Boris can defeat the EU, remove their trade barriers, bonfire all the red tape AND have the Tory press cheering him on. By doing the thing you personally don't want so project that he won't do in a million years.
*on the mating for life bit; I have no knowledge (nor wish for knowledge) of his history, if any, with STDs
The issue is that each party has a hierarchy of red lines and the most important to the EU [since Ireland can and will veto everything else] is no border within Ireland - not the integrity of the Single Market. The UK's most important red line is the sovereignty of the UK.
My proposed compromise is the only thing that suits both parties most important red line, which means the EU's secondary red line will have to go. Because if A16 is invoked and there's no replacement for the Protocol then there is no integrity anyway.
So long as the UK stands firm the EU faces two choices: No compromise and no integrity, or compromise and make the best of a bad situation with regards to integrity. The latter is the only realistic outcome, no matter how much you falsely claim its impossible.
But. But.
He now says this investigation was a factor in her suicide. It is suggested that this is what led to it. Leaving aside the fact that personal tragedy is not a reason for stopping the process of justice, this does not appear to be consistent with what he said at the time.
He did an interview 10 months after her death with Woman's Hour. It can be heard here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000v2pt (the first item).
He says that he had "no inkling" of what was to happen. When they were looking for her he & his son "never ever considered what actually happened". He goes on to say "we had absolutely no warning of this". He talks about the mental impact of Covid (which she caught) on her, her disappointment at the cancellation of the Grand National. He mentions the pressures in his life in passing but not the investigation. He talks about her anxiety, says that he was unaware of the signs of someone in distress & that had he had more training he might have spotted the signs & been able to help his wife.
It is very moving. But not really compatible with what he is now saying - that the investigation into his behaviour was a cause of his wife's suicide. If he did not know then why she did what she did, how can he be so certain now?
And if he is not certain - and who can ever really understand what drives people to do this unless they explain themselves in advance - using his wife's tragedy to avoid responsibility for his actions feels, well .... I don't know what words to use, really.
Having suffered suicide in my family, I thought at the time his interview was a brave attempt to get people to be more sensitive about the pressures which those close to us can be under so that help can be sought.
Now I wonder whether we are being cynically played. We have another woman, the Standards Commissioner, being accused of being unfair, biased, incompetent & being pressured out of her job in an unsubtle attempt to protect Paterson from the consequences of his actions. No-one seems to care about the stress on her. It reflects very badly indeed on all of them.
Still when the prevailing view is that corruption does not exist if Tory MPs say it doesn't (ca. @HYUFD) & politics is not a moral philosophy class, with voters not minding politicians wetting their beaks as they'd like to do it too (ca. @isam), then there seems little point debating it further.
We must accept I suppose that we now have a Berlusconi-style government (corrupt, incompetent, mainly interested in party advantage) led by a man with a rackety private life & scant regard for morality or rules. Politics seems largely pointless, especially with an Opposition barely capable of taking the skin off a rice pudding.
Personally I'm just hoping we'll soon have the Mediterranean weather & style to go with the Italianisation of our public life.
"I fear last night's debate conflated the individual case with the general concern.
"This link needs to be broken".
🧐
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1456209930805993473
As @bbclaurak reports, plans from last night seem to be ditched
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59158469
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1456209282811277312
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1456210295333040135
Personally I'm trying not to react too much to the daily figures. When the number dropped under 40K there were people saying "See? It's beaten!" and when it went back over 40K there were people shouting "Plan B now". Overall the picture looks fairly stable at a high plateau.
Again, there are no red lines for the UK. We did a deal which ended the UK free trade zone. Breaking up your own country so that you need an export license to sell products from one bit to another big is as big a tell as you can offer to the opposing negotiators as to your grasp on the negotiation.
We won't stand firm because we don't stand firm because we don't actually have any red lines we won't cross. They just need a "deal" they can sell to their voters, or if not that a threat that they can worry them about.
/ˈɒmnɪʃamb(ə)lz/
noun
INFORMAL•BRITISH
a situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged, characterized by a string of blunders and miscalculations.
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1456208914584903683
Graun feed:
'Asked whether Stone should resign, Kwarteng told Sky News:
I think it’s difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact that we’re reviewing the process, and we’re overturning and trying to reform this whole process, but it’s up to the commissioner to decide her position.
Asked what he meant by “decide her position”, Kwarteng said:
It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing, but I’m not saying she should resign.
“I’m not saying she should resign,” Kwarteng claimed. But it sounded very much as if he was, and that is how Labour interpreted his answers.'
A completely stupid own goal
Yes, you did Jacob. Not sure what this third person is about.
https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1456208783726759937
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1456211931300257792
1. Tories have already dropped its 'overthrow the system to save our rights to be corrupt' plan they were whipped to vote for yesterday
2. This morning's body armour minister was out debasing himself to talk up a policy dropped before he finished speaking
3. We're all left with the stench of their corruption knowing they *wanted* to do this
All this will have done is strengthen the Independent Standards Commissioner. Which is great news as she goes after Number 10 for Flatgate.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1456212850125545473
Further restrictions like NPIs would have to be open-ended, because until we get better vaccines or good treatments we will face a flare up of covid each time we relax restrictions. So anyone arguing for mandatory masks, social distancing, or closing certain bits of the economy is effectively asking for those things to be done for a very long time, not a few weeks or months.