When you lose a bet, this is where your money is often going to:
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be. . . .
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
Re grammars - and bear in mind this is just my instinct, rather than anything backed up by data - my feel is that a vocational/non-vocational split is probably a good thing. After all, most of the top performing countries - from an academic and work skills perspective have a split like that.
That being said... I think 11 feels very early. Boys private schools like Eton or Westminster start a 13 or 14, and that's probably a more natural point - as well as allowing us summer babies a few more years to catch up.
I went from my prep school to another private school at 13 (The prep school is now formally the junior school for the senior school), we did bucketloads of "Common entrance" exams prep at the prep school; I remember some of them being not a million miles off of GCSE exams. The entry exam for the private senior school was not "Common Entrance" - do private schools still use that for entry at 13, or is it ALL about cash these days.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
When you lose a bet, this is where your money is often going to:
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
Floating LNG production vessels are impressive beasts too - when ballasted, Shell's Prelude will be six times the weight of the USS Nimitz....
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
Floating LNG production vessels are impressive beasts too - when ballasted, Shell's Prelude will be six times the weight of the USS Nimitz....
Yes, I was going to go on a trip to visit it in the docks in Singapore, but Shell cancelled the trip. (Boo.)
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
Floating LNG production vessels are impressive beasts too - when ballasted, Shell's Prelude will be six times the weight of the USS Nimitz....
Yes, I was going to go on a trip to visit it in the docks in Singapore, but Shell cancelled the trip. (Boo.)
Shell are not my favourite company.
Some years back, I was in a very difficult neogtiation with them in The Hague, vital to the success of my company. Their entire team kept leaving the room, coming back in without comment about what they had been discussing.
Some hours later, I got a call from our London office, telling me my hotel accommodation had been extended until they could find me a way back home. When I asked why, they were somewhat astonished that I had no idea about the attack on the Twin Towers....
Which is what the Shell team had been watching. Without mentioning it. Complete *****
I must have been in about the last 1% to see any of the footage. Now THAT is a hard negotiation, Theresa....
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be. . . .
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
If staying in a Customs Union is EU rule then Turkey is under Brussels rule too
We are back to 'a' customs union vs 'the' customs union.
Turkey is at a massive disadvantage because of its membership of 'a' customs union with the EU. It can export to the EU and the EU can export to Turkey. But in addition any country with a trade agreement with the EU can also export tariff free to Turkey without a reciprocal ability for Turkey to export tariff free to the third country. This is such a severe position that Turkey has long been weighing up whether it can continue in a customs union with the EU - indeed they had warned they would be forced to withdraw if the EU had signed an FTA with the US.
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
Floating LNG production vessels are impressive beasts too - when ballasted, Shell's Prelude will be six times the weight of the USS Nimitz....
Yes, I was going to go on a trip to visit it in the docks in Singapore, but Shell cancelled the trip. (Boo.)
Shell are not my favourite company.
Some years back, I was in a very difficult neogtiation with them in The Hague, vital to the success of my company. Their entire team kept leaving the room, coming back in without comment about what they had been discussing.
Some hours later, I got a call from our London office, telling me my hotel accommodation had been extended until they could find me a way back home. When I asked why, they were somewhat astonished that I had no idea about the attack on the Twin Towers....
Which is what the Shell team had been watching. Without mentioning it. Complete *****
I must have been in about the last 1% to see any of the footage. Now THAT is a hard negotiation, Theresa....
As a matter of interest, why is it that you don't give them points for leaving you undistracted from what was so important to your company?
When you lose a bet, this is where your money is often going to:
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
Playing the man gets you off, doesn’t it?
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
The man is all there is to play when you are dealing with someone whose arguments have no basis in fact.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
Playing the man gets you off, doesn’t it?
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
The man is all there is to play when you are dealing with someone whose arguments have no basis in fact.
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
Floating LNG production vessels are impressive beasts too - when ballasted, Shell's Prelude will be six times the weight of the USS Nimitz....
Yes, I was going to go on a trip to visit it in the docks in Singapore, but Shell cancelled the trip. (Boo.)
Shell are not my favourite company.
Some years back, I was in a very difficult neogtiation with them in The Hague, vital to the success of my company. Their entire team kept leaving the room, coming back in without comment about what they had been discussing.
Some hours later, I got a call from our London office, telling me my hotel accommodation had been extended until they could find me a way back home. When I asked why, they were somewhat astonished that I had no idea about the attack on the Twin Towers....
Which is what the Shell team had been watching. Without mentioning it. Complete *****
I must have been in about the last 1% to see any of the footage. Now THAT is a hard negotiation, Theresa....
As a matter of interest, why is it that you don't give them points for leaving you undistracted from what was so important to your company?
On the contrary, I think they didn't want me to know I might have a few more days to continue negotiating....
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
Coal stations are still fired up in preference to CCGTs when the relative fuel costs favour coal. Thereby increasing CO2 emissions. The merit order needs to be based on emissions rather than cost.
I have answered that question so many times on here in the past that if you haven't got it by now clearly you are psychologically incapable of understanding.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
In Autumn 1924 Macdonald's Government was not subject to a VONC but a vote of censure which it decided to treat as a confidence issue. On being defeated, Macdonald requested a Dissolution but George V only agreed after being assured by Baldwin and Asquith that they were unable to form a Government.
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
LNG import terminals are relatively cheap, and any country that cares about energy security should have one. I would note that the Baltic states effectively share an LNG terminal in Lithuania. Having a terminal also means that Germany has the ability to take spot gas deliveries if the price is lower than the pipeline contract price.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
Floating LNG production vessels are impressive beasts too - when ballasted, Shell's Prelude will be six times the weight of the USS Nimitz....
Yes, I was going to go on a trip to visit it in the docks in Singapore, but Shell cancelled the trip. (Boo.)
Shell are not my favourite company.
Some years back, I was in a very difficult neogtiation with them in The Hague, vital to the success of my company. Their entire team kept leaving the room, coming back in without comment about what they had been discussing.
Some hours later, I got a call from our London office, telling me my hotel accommodation had been extended until they could find me a way back home. When I asked why, they were somewhat astonished that I had no idea about the attack on the Twin Towers....
Which is what the Shell team had been watching. Without mentioning it. Complete *****
I must have been in about the last 1% to see any of the footage. Now THAT is a hard negotiation, Theresa....
As a matter of interest, why is it that you don't give them points for leaving you undistracted from what was so important to your company?
On the contrary, I think they didn't want me to know I might have a few more days to continue negotiating....
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
Playing the man gets you off, doesn’t it?
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
The man is all there is to play when you are dealing with someone whose arguments have no basis in fact.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
Playing the man gets you off, doesn’t it?
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
The man is all there is to play when you are dealing with someone whose arguments have no basis in fact.
You fail to answer the question. Coward.
strange insult from one so scared of BREXIT - ooooooh
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
Coal stations are still fired up in preference to CCGTs when the relative fuel costs favour coal. Thereby increasing CO2 emissions. The merit order needs to be based on emissions rather than cost.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
Coal stations are still fired up in preference to CCGTs when the relative fuel costs favour coal. Thereby increasing CO2 emissions. The merit order needs to be based on emissions rather than cost.
you'll reimburse the difference, presumably
Will you refund the difference for the public health externalities of sticking with coal? Come on, cough up.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
In Autumn 1924 Macdonald's Government was not subject to a VONC but a vote of censure which it decided to treat as a confidence issue. On being defeated, Macdonald requested a Dissolution but George V only agreed after being assured by Baldwin and Asquith that they were unable to form a Government.
1924 is perhaps also not the best example as there had been a general election very shortly beforehand where the incumbent government had been, in the words of Lord Blake, 'slapped in the face.'
I would argue 1905 was the last genuine transfer of power to an opposition maugre an election. In many crucial ways of which that was one, the outgoing Balfour government was the last Victorian government.
Edit - I think I'm right in saying that Baldwin wasn't technically no-confidenced but had the King's Speech voted down.
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
Coal stations are still fired up in preference to CCGTs when the relative fuel costs favour coal. Thereby increasing CO2 emissions. The merit order needs to be based on emissions rather than cost.
you'll reimburse the difference, presumably
If we fully priced in the damaging externalities of climate change then the lower carbon option would be way cheaper.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
Coal stations are still fired up in preference to CCGTs when the relative fuel costs favour coal. Thereby increasing CO2 emissions. The merit order needs to be based on emissions rather than cost.
you'll reimburse the difference, presumably
Will you refund the difference for the public health externalities of sticking with coal? Come on, cough up.
Hmm I think a General Election is preferable, the country is going to get completely ripped to shreds socially with a second referendum; or economically with no deal.
Hmm I think a General Election is preferable, the country is going to get completely ripped to shreds socially with a second referendum; or economically with no deal.
A GE is even less likely to resolve things than a second referendum. Indeed, a second referendum might follow a GE, depending how confused the outcome is (say for instance Labour win most seats on the basis of renegotiating, but also run into problems passing anything, and suggest a referendum to resolve things).
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
That’s a bit irritating given Corbyn wants to reopen deep mines. National Coal Reserve I guess.
We are rpaidly reaching a point, perhaps 2020, where we will require no coal at all between April and the start of September. It would be next year but coal is relatively flexible compared to other sources.
Coal stations are still fired up in preference to CCGTs when the relative fuel costs favour coal. Thereby increasing CO2 emissions. The merit order needs to be based on emissions rather than cost.
you'll reimburse the difference, presumably
If we fully priced in the damaging externalities of climate change then the lower carbon option would be way cheaper.
I confess my response was cryptic but the point is, analysing the cost and allocating it to different potential culprits is extremely difficult, just as divvying up an extremely tight public purse between straightened good causes is difficult. Making trite observations and policies to find a friendly ear is Corbyn's speciality - nuff said.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
Hmm I think a General Election is preferable, the country is going to get completely ripped to shreds socially with a second referendum; or economically with no deal.
Another expert soothsayer although, with no experience of and therefore no expertise in soothsaying, I do agree with the "socially" bit
Hmm I think a General Election is preferable, the country is going to get completely ripped to shreds socially with a second referendum; or economically with no deal.
A GE is even less likely to resolve things than a second referendum. Indeed, a second referendum might follow a GE, depending how confused the outcome is (say for instance Labour win most seats on the basis of renegotiating, but also run into problems passing anything, and suggest a referendum to resolve things).
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That is the natural conclusion of my comment. Yes of course we could walk away from a treaty. But to do so would be a major departure from decades if not centuries of diplomatic behaviour. I am genuinely not sure when, if ever, we have reneged on a treaty and certainly don't think we should start now. Not least because we have used treaties so often to reinforce claims in international courts (both legal and courts of opinion). A perfect and timely example being Gibraltar. And as you imply, if we start breaking treaties, who would want to do deals with us in the future.
As an aside, interestingly neither the EU nor France are signatories to the Convention
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I have spent a fair bit of time looking for an example. From the time of the 1969 convention I can find none. I assume there must be examples but so far I have been unable to find any. There are claims that both Russia and the US are in breach of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty but there has not been a direct repudiation of the treaty as far as I know.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
I changed my mind on the #peoplesvote after the march in June, having previously opposed it.
While it has moved from fringe to centre stage politically over the last 6 months, it still is unlikely in my book, even though May's most loyal lieutenant is discussing it with the press.
It is a useful precurser to a Rejoin campaign, fuelled by a sense of grievance that the campaigners were not listened to.
I suspect that those bored by Brexit wranglings get put in suspended animation for a decade or so.
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
Of course Germany breached the Versailles Treaty in the 1930s by secretly rearming but there must be more recent - and perhaps less explosive - examples
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That is the natural conclusion of my comment. Yes of course we could walk away from a treaty. But to do so would be a major departure from decades if not centuries of diplomatic behaviour. I am genuinely not sure when, if ever, we have reneged on a treaty and certainly don't think we should start now. Not least because we have used treaties so often to reinforce claims in international courts (both legal and courts of opinion). A perfect and timely example being Gibraltar. And as you imply, if we start breaking treaties, who would want to do deals with us in the future.
As an aside, interestingly neither the EU nor France are signatories to the Convention
That last bit seems to me to be more central than an aside
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 with a big majority. So Parliament was decisive and has taken the decision to Leave on March 29th.
What remains is trying to negotiate with the EU. This needs the appointment of a leader who is good at negotiating. This means a new leader of the government not a second referendum or a general election..
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
Perhaps not the best precedent. I don't think that episode ended well for either Herr Hitler, or for Germany!
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That is the natural conclusion of my comment. Yes of course we could walk away from a treaty. But to do so would be a major departure from decades if not centuries of diplomatic behaviour. I am genuinely not sure when, if ever, we have reneged on a treaty and certainly don't think we should start now. Not least because we have used treaties so often to reinforce claims in international courts (both legal and courts of opinion). A perfect and timely example being Gibraltar. And as you imply, if we start breaking treaties, who would want to do deals with us in the future.
As an aside, interestingly neither the EU nor France are signatories to the Convention
That last bit seems to me to be more central than an aside
The EU is not a state, so it can't be party to the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention is specifically about treaties between states only.
That said, the various EU treaties are themselves treaties between (the member) states.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That is the natural conclusion of my comment. Yes of course we could walk away from a treaty. But to do so would be a major departure from decades if not centuries of diplomatic behaviour. I am genuinely not sure when, if ever, we have reneged on a treaty and certainly don't think we should start now. Not least because we have used treaties so often to reinforce claims in international courts (both legal and courts of opinion). A perfect and timely example being Gibraltar. And as you imply, if we start breaking treaties, who would want to do deals with us in the future.
As an aside, interestingly neither the EU nor France are signatories to the Convention
That last bit seems to me to be more central than an aside
Not really. Funnily enough it doesn't need both sides to be signatories to the convention. If you are a party to the convention and you sign a treaty, even if the other side is not a party to the convention, you are still expected to abide by it.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 with a big majority. So Parliament was decisive and has taken the decision to Leave on March 29th.
What remains is trying to negotiate with the EU. This needs the appointment of a leader who is good at negotiating. This means a new leader of the government not a second referendum or a general election..
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 with a big majority. So Parliament was decisive and has taken the decision to Leave on March 29th.
What remains is trying to negotiate with the EU. This needs the appointment of a leader who is good at negotiating. This means a new leader of the government not a second referendum or a general election..
I am not sure many would agree with you on that.
I am sure many would. Just not the same ones as you are thinking of.
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
Of course Germany breached the Versailles Treaty in the 1930s by secretly rearming but there must be more recent - and perhaps less explosive - examples
Well, the US claims that Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty which it gave as grounds for its issuing the required six months notice of withdrawal.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?
I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.
The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it..
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I have spent a fair bit of time looking for an example. From the time of the 1969 convention I can find none. I assume there must be examples but so far I have been unable to find any. There are claims that both Russia and the US are in breach of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty but there has not been a direct repudiation of the treaty as far as I know.
For the record, I am not glibly proposing that we should walk away from a treaty except in extremis and in such circumstances I think the yardstick we would be judged by would be based on morality rather than law. Just an opinion.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't, the others on a case by case basis - Hoey is a leave block for instance.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
Of course Germany breached the Versailles Treaty in the 1930s by secretly rearming but there must be more recent - and perhaps less explosive - examples
These days it seems the French get blamed for that as much as the Germans
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
Perhaps not the best precedent. I don't think that episode ended well for either Herr Hitler, or for Germany!
Interestingly the USSR did give Japan notice in April 1945 that it was terminating the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, as required by the treaty. I don't think they gave the Poles the same courtesy before they invaded in 1939 though.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
I know you keep pushing this line Robert. But how many of those 210 treaties were canned unilaterally? Indeed treaties are regularly thrown in the bin by the agreement of both parties. That is expressly allowed under the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties. But as far as I can see - and I have looked at this a number of times - there is no power for a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty if there is no exit clause. To do so would put us in breach of our international obligations and of the Vienna Convention of which we are a signatory.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That would surely depend upon what the alternative was. Since you are obviously an expert, when was the last treaty to be unilaterally nullified and why?
I have spent a fair bit of time looking for an example. From the time of the 1969 convention I can find none. I assume there must be examples but so far I have been unable to find any. There are claims that both Russia and the US are in breach of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty but there has not been a direct repudiation of the treaty as far as I know.
The US gave the six months notice of withdrawal from this treaty in October.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't, the others on a case by case basis - Hoey is a leave block for instance.
Chances are, it will be a combination of the two. And Labour. And the Lib Dems. And the SNP.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?
Difference between can't and won't. Showing his feminine side?
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
Of course Germany breached the Versailles Treaty in the 1930s by secretly rearming but there must be more recent - and perhaps less explosive - examples
Well, the US claims that Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty which it gave as grounds for its issuing the required six months notice of withdrawal.
Yep I did mention that one below. It is interesting because of course Russia denies it is in breach. I was thinking of situations where countries openly withdraw from a treaty without agreement.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?
I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.
The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.
Firstly, I think May's Deal will pass through parliament.
If not, I think a second referendum is inevitable. I think that referendum will be Deal versus Remain and I'd expect Deal to win.
In the unlikely event it's Deal versus No Deal, I still expect Deal to win.
There may be some advantage in the country endorsing Deal, for legitimacy purposes, but if the outcome was for example 52/48 Remain/Deal, we'd be in a right mess... Remaining but with a great deal of discontent.
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
In 1990 Finland unilaterally announced it would no longer uphold the provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Paris which limited the size and equipment of its armed forces.
Apart from that, unilaterally tearing up an agreement doesn't set sound foundations for further treaties with the same or with different partners.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
That is the natural conclusion of my comment. Yes of course we could walk away from a treaty. But to do so would be a major departure from decades if not centuries of diplomatic behaviour. I am genuinely not sure when, if ever, we have reneged on a treaty and certainly don't think we should start now. Not least because we have used treaties so often to reinforce claims in international courts (both legal and courts of opinion). A perfect and timely example being Gibraltar. And as you imply, if we start breaking treaties, who would want to do deals with us in the future.
As an aside, interestingly neither the EU nor France are signatories to the Convention
That last bit seems to me to be more central than an aside
Not really. Funnily enough it doesn't need both sides to be signatories to the convention. If you are a party to the convention and you sign a treaty, even if the other side is not a party to the convention, you are still expected to abide by it.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
Only two sets of dickheads not more? Things must be improving.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.
Brexit Day cannot be the market for May's Deal since it could be achieved with a crash-out No Deal.
What do we think the odds are? I'd go for 70% May's Deal; 20% Remain; 10% No Deal. (But that may be wishful thinking on my part!)
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
In 1990 Finland unilaterally announced it would no longer uphold the provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Paris which limited the size and equipment of its armed forces.
Cheers. That is a good one which I have not heard of. And Finland was indeed a signatory to the Convention since its start.
To be honest it doesn't seem to have done them any harm on the international stage.
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
In 1990 Finland unilaterally announced it would no longer uphold the provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Paris which limited the size and equipment of its armed forces.
I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.
I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.
In 1990 Finland unilaterally announced it would no longer uphold the provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Paris which limited the size and equipment of its armed forces.
Cheers. That is a good one which I have not heard of. And Finland was indeed a signatory to the Convention since its start.
To be honest it doesn't seem to have done them any harm on the international stage.
Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics today pointed out that many people think No Deal means status quo, as it does on the game show. To may people, No Deal means you walk away with what you have, not lose everything.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.
So far 81 Conservative MPs already have said they can’t support this deal. If the majority against is big enough, there will be no second vote. For a second vote to take place, there is going to need to be a huge amount of word-eating before the first vote.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.
So far 81 Conservative MPs already have said they can’t support this deal. If the majority against is big enough, there will be no second vote. For a second vote to take place, there is going to need to be a huge amount of word-eating before the first vote.
But to be honest at least several hundred had said they would support getting rid of May but look how that ended up.
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.
So far 81 Conservative MPs already have said they can’t support this deal. If the majority against is big enough, there will be no second vote. For a second vote to take place, there is going to need to be a huge amount of word-eating before the first vote.
But to be honest at least several hundred had said they would support getting rid of May but look how that ended up.
The first time I went to the thermal baths in Budapest I was astonished how many superfit men there were there. Then I realised it was the same dozen or so strutting round and round over and over again.
The ERG seems to have the same media effect, but without the stunning good looks.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?
I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.
The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.
Shades of when you deliberated which way you were going to vote and ended up voting Green. I oppose a second referendum for similar reasons to you. But if one occurred, I’d vote Remain in a heartbeat, as that is the best option on offer.
I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?
I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.
The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.
I think that referendum will be Deal versus Remain and I'd expect Deal to win.
In the unlikely event it's Deal versus No Deal, I still expect Deal to win
What is remain? We’ve announced we’re leaving. Why should the EU just let us change our mind. It will be stay in eu, accept euro and lose rebate vs deal.
But then those leavers who feel real is really surrender will be mighty annoyed.
As I haven’t read all the deal does it allow us to - stop charging vat on sanitary products? - allow us to leave the cfp as the quote I saw said the eu would still decide the quotas but we would be allowed to have an input?
I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref. In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.
It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.
I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.
Interesting interview with Nick Boles. He thought it wouldn't. Neither did he think they would get rid of Mrs M. He though Labour would cook up their own deal and that wouldn't get through either. He thought there was a remote possibility Labour might change its mind on a second referendum but he also thought that unlikely.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46296769/john-mcdonnell-i-can-t-forgive-tories
The entry exam for the private senior school was not "Common Entrance" - do private schools still use that for entry at 13, or is it ALL about cash these days.
(Plus there are floating LNG import terminals which are really cool.)
It's behind both nuclear and renewables.
Coal: 7% (n/c)
Nuclear: 22% (-2)
Gas: 42% (-2)
Wind: 14% (+3)
(Some solar shows as a decrease in demand. The other % is attributable to other sources and our import/export ratio. Changes on previous.)
Some years back, I was in a very difficult neogtiation with them in The Hague, vital to the success of my company. Their entire team kept leaving the room, coming back in without comment about what they had been discussing.
Some hours later, I got a call from our London office, telling me my hotel accommodation had been extended until they could find me a way back home. When I asked why, they were somewhat astonished that I had no idea about the attack on the Twin Towers....
Which is what the Shell team had been watching. Without mentioning it. Complete *****
I must have been in about the last 1% to see any of the footage. Now THAT is a hard negotiation, Theresa....
Turkey is at a massive disadvantage because of its membership of 'a' customs union with the EU. It can export to the EU and the EU can export to Turkey. But in addition any country with a trade agreement with the EU can also export tariff free to Turkey without a reciprocal ability for Turkey to export tariff free to the third country. This is such a severe position that Turkey has long been weighing up whether it can continue in a customs union with the EU - indeed they had warned they would be forced to withdraw if the EU had signed an FTA with the US.
Possible, yes, but wise and sensible? almost certainly not.
I would argue 1905 was the last genuine transfer of power to an opposition maugre an election. In many crucial ways of which that was one, the outgoing Balfour government was the last Victorian government.
Edit - I think I'm right in saying that Baldwin wasn't technically no-confidenced but had the King's Speech voted down.
Must put Sunday in doubt
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1065327734581313537?s=19
Hartlepool swinging remain may soften roger's opinion of the place
It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.
I think I’d abstain if asked.
In reality, the long term deal will look a lot like the WA, for the obvious reason that the same considerations apply.
As an aside, interestingly neither the EU nor France are signatories to the Convention
While it has moved from fringe to centre stage politically over the last 6 months, it still is unlikely in my book, even though May's most loyal lieutenant is discussing it with the press.
It is a useful precurser to a Rejoin campaign, fuelled by a sense of grievance that the campaigners were not listened to.
I suspect that those bored by Brexit wranglings get put in suspended animation for a decade or so.
Of course Germany breached the Versailles Treaty in the 1930s by secretly rearming but there must be more recent - and perhaps less explosive - examples
What remains is trying to negotiate with the EU. This needs the appointment of a leader who is good at negotiating. This means a new leader of the government not a second referendum or a general election..
That said, the various EU treaties are themselves treaties between (the member) states.
The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.
In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't, the others on a case by case basis - Hoey is a leave block for instance.
If not, I think a second referendum is inevitable. I think that referendum will be Deal versus Remain and I'd expect Deal to win.
In the unlikely event it's Deal versus No Deal, I still expect Deal to win.
There may be some advantage in the country endorsing Deal, for legitimacy purposes, but if the outcome was for example 52/48 Remain/Deal, we'd be in a right mess... Remaining but with a great deal of discontent.
What do we think the odds are? I'd go for 70% May's Deal; 20% Remain; 10% No Deal. (But that may be wishful thinking on my part!)
To be honest it doesn't seem to have done them any harm on the international stage.
The ERG seems to have the same media effect, but without the stunning good looks.
But then those leavers who feel real is really surrender will be mighty annoyed.
As I haven’t read all the deal does it allow us to
- stop charging vat on sanitary products?
- allow us to leave the cfp as the quote I saw said the eu would still decide the quotas but we would be allowed to have an input?
Unfortunately I missed the end!