A policy that was key in Wuhan also, isolation hospitals to prevent household transmission. Low tech, but it works:
"Sall’s government also made a dramatic promise: Every person who tested positive would have a treatment bed, whether they had symptoms or not. That kept patients away from home, where they might transmit the virus to family members.
“We saw at the beginning that if you do that, we can very rapidly stop the transmission,” Bousso said."
I see a male tennis player born after the 1980s is going to win a grand slam singles title. It would be funny if Félix Auger-Aliassime wins given he was born in the year 2000.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
I'm afraid that we will end up with 'troubles' again in Northern Ireland which as before may spill over to the rest of GB, but probably not Scotland because that will be gone. Also of course the financial cost of impeded access to our biggest trading partner and the inevitable price rises and unemployment increase. Thanks Dominic.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
It's the way the world works.
The UK will be a sovereign free country as we voted for. If the EU has issues with domestic laws then they can take that to arbitration etc not our courts.
A policy that was key in Wuhan also, isolation hospitals to prevent household transmission. Low tech, but it works:
"Sall’s government also made a dramatic promise: Every person who tested positive would have a treatment bed, whether they had symptoms or not. That kept patients away from home, where they might transmit the virus to family members.
“We saw at the beginning that if you do that, we can very rapidly stop the transmission,” Bousso said."
Senegal probably has a war room stuffed with big tellies and weirdos.
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
It looks like Biden is heading for victory at the moment but it would only take a relatively modest 2-3% swing back to Trump to make it 50/50. That's how it seems at present
PS: is it possible to view all the comments on Vanilla comments?
The polls definitely point to that. The actions of the Biden camp suggest they have some concerns. They have started their TV ads in Minnesota a week early. And they are doing more Black voter outreach than normal. That might be because of turnout fears or because they think Trump is picking off a few percentage points.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think this one has got 2017 with Biden as May written all over it - a candidate seemingly ahead but who doesn’t generate much enthusiasm. Put it another way. If it wasn’t for the published polls, what would make you think Biden is the favourite? He pulls now where near the crowds that Trump does; the recent snippets from election results (House special elections etc) have been mixed.
Enthusiastic crowds mean nothing , as Jeremy Corbyn can tell you. And what crowds are you even comparing Biden’s too given he hasn’t held a rally in months due to COVID?
When you have the Bernie Bros making ads about Biden being not great but he will do, it doesn’t suggest much enthusiasm. I do think one area where Biden is going to be weaker this time vs Clinton is in the Hispanic / Black vote but I think he will pick up more white voters.
Re Corbyn, he didn’t but bear in mind the UK and US have two different electoral systems. FPTP got May her seats. If the US had a similar gap to the 2017 result - ie 2.4 pc - then Trump would be likely to be President again.
Trump and Corbyn are very alike. But Trump in 2016 was Corbyn's 2017.
Trump 2020 is shaping up to being Corbyn 2019.
Tump 2020 is shaping up to being Corbyn 2019.
Biden 2020 is shaping up to being Theresa May 2017.
Who wins that election?
I don't think Biden is comparable to May, he isn't taking anything for granted, nor threatening to take his supporters homes.
Trump is May -- neither got the anticipated boost from "law and order" because the outrages occurred on their watch and their actions made things worse.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
It also shows that the Brexiteers either don’t understand or wilfully ignore the reality of why the Irish backstop existed/was necessary. They just persist in believing it was all just a smokescreen put up by the EU for no purpose, and therefore there are no consequences for abandoning it.
The Irish backstop existed to prevent a customs border on the island of Ireland. Both May’s Agreement, and the signed agreement established alternative arrangements to the otherwise legal necessity of this happening under a no deal Brexit.
The Brexiteers think that they can tear the Agreement up and there will be no Customs border. And if there is then it will be entirely the EU’s choice, not their legal imperative. Which is b*ll*x or at least will be without smuggling on an enormous scale. Which the U.K. will inevitably look to combat as much as the EU.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
It's the way the world works.
The UK will be a sovereign free country as we voted for. If the EU has issues with domestic laws then they can take that to arbitration etc not our courts.
It’s the way certain countries, such as China, behave. I am old enough to remember when the UK government criticised the Chinese government for flouting international law in Hong Kong. It now turns out we don’t believe in it.
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
If there is no deal are we still committed for ever to the terms of the WA?
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
Arbitration doesn’t work if one of the parties cannot be trusted to implement the final ruling.
You are cheering a plan to make Britain an International pariah
You're a charlatan. You'll attack the Government no matter what. Sign the WA? That's bad supposedly. Override the WA? That's bad supposedly. I at least attack the government if I disagree but you're just one tracked.
The EU can deal with the UK through international arbitration just as any other country can deal with foreign countries because that's what we will be.
You just can't abide by the fact we are going to be sovereign can you?
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
If there is no deal are we still committed for ever to the terms of the WA?
Under international law the terms of the WA can only be changed if both parties agree. But there is nothing to stop the UK from legislating to break the treaty. We will just have to live with the consequences of that.
My guess is that breaking our international treaty obligations will play very well with Tory voters. What may be less palatable are the consequences. I genuinely can’t see a realistic scenario where this ends well for the UK. In fact, it’s much more likely the UK ends.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
It's the way the world works.
The UK will be a sovereign free country as we voted for. If the EU has issues with domestic laws then they can take that to arbitration etc not our courts.
The Irish border is not a domestic issue. Trading within the U.K. internal market may in theory be a domestic issue for U.K. courts, but in reality is not because under the WA the trading arrangements between NI and the mainland are specifically designed to avoid a border on the island of Ireland (an international law issue). You personally may be able to get around this by just saying you are in favour of a United Ireland but that is not the Govt’s policy.
It is not far out of tune with Tory voters though, just 36% of Tory voters want Biden to win the Presidency compared to 75% of Labour voters who want Biden to win. Tory voters may not greatly admire Trump but that does not mean they want Biden to win either https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283804957897109504?s=20
Perhaps those numbers show that Conservative voters don't care as much about America.
You need to know how people are prompted in this kind of poll. If previous questions are about British politics, and therefore people have been primed to think of themselves as conservatives/supporters of Johnson, they will be more likely to identify with Johnson's admiration for Trump (and that the Republicans are traditionally seen as the conservative party in the US) . The fact that so many don't want to give an opinion (on Trump!) I'd speculate shows the resultant confusion.
I'm going to do what I've criticised HYUFD for, and add all the Conservative Don't Know/Won't Says to Biden.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
I'm afraid that we will end up with 'troubles' again in Northern Ireland which as before may spill over to the rest of GB, but probably not Scotland because that will be gone. Also of course the financial cost of impeded access to our biggest trading partner and the inevitable price rises and unemployment increase. Thanks Dominic.
I travel to NI regularly. The surface need only be scratched for the wounds to reappear.
Johnson and Cummings are either unaware or don't care about the demon they COULD be unleashing.
You are cheering a plan to make Britain an International pariah
You're a charlatan. You'll attack the Government no matter what. Sign the WA? That's bad supposedly. Override the WA? That's bad supposedly. I at least attack the government if I disagree but you're just one tracked.
The EU can deal with the UK through international arbitration just as any other country can deal with foreign countries because that's what we will be.
You just can't abide by the fact we are going to be sovereign can you?
The WA was clearly a crap deal to sign as the government now feels compelled to break international law so that we can renege on it.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
It's the way the world works.
The UK will be a sovereign free country as we voted for. If the EU has issues with domestic laws then they can take that to arbitration etc not our courts.
It’s the way certain countries, such as China, behave. I am old enough to remember when the UK government criticised the Chinese government for flouting international law in Hong Kong. It now turns out we don’t believe in it.
No it is the way every single country in the world works. If it wasn't then we wouldn't ever need arbitration or organisations like the WTO tribunals.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
If there is no deal are we still committed for ever to the terms of the WA?
My guess is that breaking our international treaty obligations will play very well with Tory voters. What may be less palatable are the consequences. I genuinely can’t see a realistic scenario where this ends well for the UK. In fact, it’s much more likely the UK ends.
Of course something which Philip is entirely comfortable with, which he how he is entirely comfortable with defending U.K. govt policy because he agrees which its logical end point (the breakup of the U.K.). The fact that the U.K. govt pursues the EU policy he favour whilst being strongly opposed to the break up of the U.K. is not his concern, so he can happily disregard it.
My guess is that breaking our international treaty obligations will play very well with Tory voters. What may be less palatable are the consequences. I genuinely can’t see a realistic scenario where this ends well for the UK. In fact, it’s much more likely the UK ends.
it does not play well with this conservative but we are still in a negotiation and let's see where we end, after all it is only six weeks or so to the climax of all of this
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Yep, that’s the Chinese argument about Hong Kong. If the UK government does not believe it should be held to the international commitments it makes then it can’t complain when others feel the same.
It's the way the world works.
The UK will be a sovereign free country as we voted for. If the EU has issues with domestic laws then they can take that to arbitration etc not our courts.
It’s the way certain countries, such as China, behave. I am old enough to remember when the UK government criticised the Chinese government for flouting international law in Hong Kong. It now turns out we don’t believe in it.
No it is the way every single country in the world works. If it wasn't then we wouldn't ever need arbitration or organisations like the WTO tribunals.
Arbitration and the WTO tribunals are designed within the framework of international law. Actively reneging on an international treaty - as the Chinese have done in HK and the UK government is threatening to do - is acting outside of that framework. Some countries undoubtedly do it. They cannot be trusted.
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
If there is no deal are we still committed for ever to the terms of the WA?
QTWAIN.
Nothing lasts forever.
Indeed. But the point is that without a deal the terms of the WA are pretty meaningless. There is an implicit dependency of the one on the other.
I think the voters understand that leaders say nice things about other leaders, especially ones that are notoriously self-centred and narcissistic.
However I do think if Biden wins the whole populism thing will start to look ridiculous, and Britain will be stuck with this increasingly embarrassing Brexit, like a bad tattoo.
Except the EU has not had a good plague. Slow, bumbling, ineffectual. And their eventual response was another undemocratic lurch to fiscal Federalism.
Asia is the only winner from Covid. Brexit seems irrelevant, if anything, rather than good or bad.
I fully expect Chinese companies to be on a buying spree of weakened European businesses over the next few years, like they have already been doing with games companies.
Covid - at least so far - has seen the definitive shift in global power, from west to east. America is led by a clown, who may be replaced by a dolt. China’s governance is deeply flawed, but it is still ascendant, and led by an elite that is effective, albeit cruel and ruthless.
2020 was the end of the American century, which began, rather neatly, in 1919
Indeed but that also means the USA alone is not strong enough to counter China.
Instead we need to bring India into an expanded G7 of western democracies if we are going to build a real counterweight to the authoritarian Communist Xi regime
You’re obsessed with India. India does not care about you, or us.
I think he's fond of the current fascist government there.
My guess is that breaking our international treaty obligations will play very well with Tory voters. What may be less palatable are the consequences. I genuinely can’t see a realistic scenario where this ends well for the UK. In fact, it’s much more likely the UK ends.
Of course something which Philip is entirely comfortable with, which he how he is entirely comfortable with defending U.K. govt policy because he agrees which its logical end point (the breakup of the U.K.). The fact that the U.K. govt pursues the EU policy he favour whilst being strongly opposed to the break up of the U.K. is not his concern, so he can happily disregard it.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
G, the whole purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement was to protect against the consequences for Ireland of No deal. To rewrite it so that sections don’t apply in the event of no deal is entirely to defeat its purpose.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
This is in the realm of China, Trump and Putin. If you believe, even if the EU folds, this ends well for the UK you are mistaken.
International law is never supreme in a sovereign country. Sovereign laws are.
Many people claimed that Tony Blair broke international law with the Iraq War. If Blair did break international law invading Iraq then why didn't domestic law stop him?
The answer of course is Parliament authorised the Iraq War and Parliament trumps so called international law domestically. Always has, always will.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
G, the whole purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement was to protect against the consequences for Ireland of No deal. To rewrite it so that sections don’t apply in the event of no deal is entirely to defeat its purpose.
Oh well what a shame.
Maybe the EU shouldn't have insisted on resolving that before trade talks? Just an idea.
That scheduling of talks was their choice. What happens from 1 January is our choice.
There is a simple reality here: Tory Brexiteers never understood how Europe worked. The rules being imposed were usually written by British diplomats Tory Brexiteers don't understand how trade works. Whether it be GATT24 or "is Dover-Calais important" they have shown repeatedly they don't have a clue Tory Brexiteers don't like details. IDS infamously shown up for the cretin he is by saying "we don't need to stinking badges details and then whining that the agreement he hadn't written had "betrayed" him by having stuff in it he didn't like Tory Brexiteers don't read agreements. Johnson couldn't have been clearer. No Tory would stick a border down the Irish Sea. Then signs a treaty sticking a border down the Irish Sea. Then says he hasn't stuck a border down the Irish Sea. Then instructs his ministers to maker arrangements for trade once the border down the Irish Sea comes into effect.
Shagger has torn up the deal because he didn't understand what was in it. Its a Manifesto Promise which HYUFD insists the Tories always stick to. Except when its the "oven ready deal" proffered as a key component of the Tory manifesto which their own MPs will be whipped to defeat. Aside from the reputational damage of taking a big shit on international law, likely counter parties to future deals will be laughing hard as the UK demonstrates it doesn't understand trade or agreements as it seeks trade agreements.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
This is in the realm of China, Trump and Putin. If you believe, even if the EU folds, this ends well for the UK you are mistaken.
Time for work!
It is the realm of every sovereign country in the entire globe.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
There is nothing to stop the UK reneging on commitments it has made under international law. But there will be consequences. The US and China are big enough and powerful enough to live with them. We’ll see if the UK is.
Is it the fourth annex to the WA that is causing most of the problems? The fourth covers 'good governance in the area of taxation, environmental protection, labour and social standards, state aid, competition, and state-owned undertakings.
Isn't the WA on these issues little more than an "agreement to try to agree"? Not sure if the norms of international law will be the same as English law, but here that is mighty difficult to enforce as a legal obligation....
I will enjoy the arguments on here over the next few weeks that it is right and proper for the Tories to break the manifesto commitments they made on the WA just a few months ago. As well as those from people who until yesterday believed it was the essence of democracy to allow the people of Northern Ireland to decide their relationship with the single market and customs union, but now no longer do.
I think the Tories should honour their commitments. I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
If there is no deal are we still committed for ever to the terms of the WA?
QTWAIN.
Nothing lasts forever.
Indeed. But the point is that without a deal the terms of the WA are pretty meaningless. There is an implicit dependency of the one on the other.
Ask the people of NI whether they are meaningless. Of course, this government would never dream of doing such a thing.
The extreme sovereignty view that any country can do within its borders anything it pleases is a coherent one, but also a dark day for humanity. It tends towards the Divine Right of the Executive.
Hungary, Belarus, China, its not a great precedent.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
There is nothing to stop the UK reneging on commitments it has made under international law. But there will be consequences. The US and China are big enough and powerful enough to live with them. We’ll see if the UK is.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
This is in the realm of China, Trump and Putin. If you believe, even if the EU folds, this ends well for the UK you are mistaken.
Time for work!
It is the realm of every sovereign country in the entire globe.
But one doesn't break international protocols without consequences.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
There is nothing to stop the UK reneging on commitments it has made under international law. But there will be consequences. The US and China are big enough and powerful enough to live with them. We’ll see if the UK is.
I agree 100%.
Good. Nobody is saying that the UK cannot override international law. What we are saying is that such an act is stupid and self-harming. It doesn't matter one bit that the PM has suddenly discovered that his "no border in the Irish Sea" agreement put a border in the Irish Sea. He signed it. The UK ripping up any agreements it didn't read and now disagrees with is a foolhardy approach when we are about to cut up every trading agreement with everyone and seek to sign new agreements...
The polls definitely point to that. The actions of the Biden camp suggest they have some concerns. They have started their TV ads in Minnesota a week early. And they are doing more Black voter outreach than normal. That might be because of turnout fears or because they think Trump is picking off a few percentage points.
Also because they're raising large piles of money...
There's no point in having money left after the election...
Well, right. I think it's revealing that to find optimistic data points for Trump you have to resort to things like "his opponents are spending more money against him in some places than they planned".
It's not a done deal but for the markets to treat this as a 50/50 shot is totally bananas.
Fundamentally, you have to believe that: (a) the polls are more wrong that any time in recent history, (b) that they are definitely wrong in one particular direction, and (c) President Trump's electoral vote efficiency is going to go from extremely good to insanely good.
I think you only have to believe that the polls have time to change before November , and they are likely to change in Trump's favour.
You might also be underestimating how unlikely a big polling error is. I don't know how valid it is to compare, but in the 2nd round of the 2017 French presidential election the polling average underestimated Macron's lead by 10%.
OTOH it's interesting that one of the biggest polling errors of recent years (several times bigger than Trump Clinton, or the Brexit referendum) massively overestimated the less socially acceptable option - no shy Le Pen voters...
The extreme sovereignty view that any country can do within its borders anything it pleases is a coherent one, but also a dark day for humanity. It tends towards the Divine Right of the Executive.
Hungary, Belarus, China, its not a great precedent.
Stifling Parliament, attacking the media, emasculating the judiciary, throwing taxpayers’ money at cronies and breaking international treaty obligations. It’s all happening in plain sight. Legions of right-wingers who drone on endlessly about liberty and democracy will defend it to the hilt.
I am still figuring out whether tearing up both the WA and the GFA is a masterstroke or utter folly with potentially dangerous ramifications.
It's not being torn up, it will still be there.
UK law would just take precedence in UK courts. As it should.
Ignoring International Law?
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
No it's directly from every sovereign country in the world.
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
There is nothing to stop the UK reneging on commitments it has made under international law. But there will be consequences. The US and China are big enough and powerful enough to live with them. We’ll see if the UK is.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
If Russia invades Belarus the lights may well go out in Dusseldorf. What Mrs Merkel will not do is threaten to turn the lights out in Dusseldorf to deter Putin from rolling his tanks into Minsk.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
Getting from "breaking the GFA" to a "united Ireland" is a process that probably wont be peaceful given the last 400 years of Irish history imho.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
Getting from "breaking the GFA" to a "united Ireland" is a process that probably wont be peaceful given the last 400 years of Irish history imho.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
If Russia invades Belarus the lights may well go out in Dusseldorf. What Mrs Merkel will not do is threaten to turn the lights out in Dusseldorf to deter Putin from rolling his tanks into Minsk.
With Nordstream it is clear that Russia controls the light switches in Germany. This has been so from the beginning and they made themselves even more dependent on Russian goodwill by repudiating both nuclear energy and their own dirty coal. Were they lulled into thinking that having Schröder on the Nordstream board would ensure reliable gas supplies into the future? Sold down the river or what?
On topic, I think the job of the foreign secretary in 2017 was to schmooze Trump so on this I dont think its inconsistent with the polling saying the UK public are no fans of his.
As for Brexit, honour, trust, negotiations, power, respect for the law, its all been said already, so many times. Sad.
Create a storm, distract the population from what’s really going on, ensure brexit takes place hidden behind the damage of covid. Blame the EU and the virus for the countries problems, distract people from identifying the winners in all of the chaos. Repeat for Scotland independence. All of the economic failures will be someone else’s fault.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
Getting from "breaking the GFA" to a "united Ireland" is a process that probably wont be peaceful given the last 400 years of Irish history imho.
You are probably right, but I expect it would be short lived. Loyalist hoods will take the opportunity to make hay before resignation sets in. Piss off the republican side by tearing up the GFA and we could be back to where we were in the 1970s and 80s until we see a United Ireland. The nutters on both sides are relatively small in number but the havoc they wreak could be significant.
The WA provisions for the customs border on the Irish sea were designed to prevent the return of customs infrastructure on the Northern/Southern Irish border, regardless of the outcome of trade talks.
They now say they will repudiate these provisions in the event of no deal.
Is Govt policy now in favour of the return of customs infrastructure on the Irish border in the event of no deal? Or perhaps they've got the "electronic solution" oven ready to go?
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
Ha. So genocide is fine if we legislate for it domestically and it stays within our borders?
I knew there was a reason you voted for Claire Fox.
The WA provisions for the customs border on the Irish sea were designed to prevent the return of customs infrastructure on the Northern/Southern Irish border, regardless of the outcome of trade talks.
They now say they will repudiate these provisions in the event of no deal.
Is Govt policy now in favour of the return of customs infrastructure on the Irish border in the event of no deal? Or perhaps they've got the "electronic solution" oven ready to go?
Don't ask Johnson questions. He gets all and red faced and starts blaming his aides for not prepping him properly and then he'll ask them to investigate your past to see if there is any good material.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
If Russia invades Belarus the lights may well go out in Dusseldorf. What Mrs Merkel will not do is threaten to turn the lights out in Dusseldorf to deter Putin from rolling his tanks into Minsk.
With Nordstream it is clear that Russia controls the light switches in Germany. This has been so from the beginning and they made themselves even more dependent on Russian goodwill by repudiating both nuclear energy and their own dirty coal. Were they lulled into thinking that having Schröder on the Nordstream board would ensure reliable gas supplies into the future? Sold down the river or what?
My point was the futility of such a gesture. "We won't use your gas and electricity if you invade Belarus". The Russian retort being "we can invade Belarus and we can turn off your lights".
So to Cummings' gesture. "We will tear up the GFA if you don't give us a trade deal on our terms". The response from the EU should be equally blunt.
Is Govt policy now in favour of the return of customs infrastructure on the Irish border in the event of no deal? Or perhaps they've got the "electronic solution" oven ready to go?
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
Getting from "breaking the GFA" to a "united Ireland" is a process that probably wont be peaceful given the last 400 years of Irish history imho.
You are probably right, but I expect it would be short lived. Loyalist hoods will take the opportunity to make hay before resignation sets in. Piss off the republican side by tearing up the GFA and we could be back to where we were in the 1970s and 80s until we see a United Ireland. The nutters on both sides are relatively small in number but the havoc they wreak could be significant.
I've given this a 'Like' because I agree with it, but I don't actually 'like' it much at all. The only 'positive' is the suggestion that the problems will be short-lived, although I'm not sure that'll actually be the case.
You really dont see a problem with repeatedly making incompatible promises to different people, and then inevitably breaking some? All excused because he kept some of his promises?
What rubbish. Prior to the election he explicitly stated that the WA (under his revised 'deal') would not mean customs declarations when crossing the Irish Sea. Nothing about "no customs declarations because we will repudiate the WA at the first available opportunity".
Deliberately breaching a treaty is an Act of War. In another era this would have lead to a declaration of war from the other side and actual fighting.
Well if the EU want to declare war on the UK, an island nation which has not been successfully invaded since 1066 and with a stronger military than any other nation in the EU bar France whose war record is not that great against us, in order to defend the right of customs and tariffs to be imposed on goods coming from NI to mainland GB and vice versa that is up to them
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
There is a deal to be done that respects UK sovereignty and is in the interests of both parties.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Listening to 5 live business this morning on the WDA by an independent observer she commented that the WDA is not being re-written but sections on the internal GB market and state aid are to be altered in UK law to come into force only if a no deal occurs
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Cummings expects the EU to fold. I can't see how they can from a threat like this.
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
The observer did not seem anything like as upset as many on here are and seemed to think it was just part of the increasing urgency over a deal
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Legally the WA applies in the event of no deal. The UK has the sovereign right to repudiate it. They would have to live with the consequences.
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
The UK is sticking to the terms of the WA not to have a hard border within Ireland actually, just threatening to rip up the pledge to have a border in the Irish Sea, which if Boris does do that will also win the 8 DUP MPs back to the Tories in the event of a hung parliament in 2024
Good analysis of the consequences - potentially desirable in green and bad in red - for the UK in breaching the Withdrawal Agreement. It's clear the reason the government is doing this is the green box in the top left : Demonstrates to hard Brexiteers that No 10 is committed to UK independence..
Good point that this will lead to a loss of trust even if it is only floated and not carried out. Negotiating partners, not just the EU, will look to lock down any future agreement to greatest extent possible. This is in the context of the UK quite legitimately looking for a lighter touch, more flexible governance for relationships.
One point from me. New Covid cases rose 50% yesterday. That the government threw out this bombshell now is suspiciously coincidental.
Comments
"Sall’s government also made a dramatic promise: Every person who tested positive would have a treatment bed, whether they had symptoms or not. That kept patients away from home, where they might transmit the virus to family members.
“We saw at the beginning that if you do that, we can very rapidly stop the transmission,” Bousso said."
Also of course the financial cost of impeded access to our biggest trading partner and the inevitable price rises and unemployment increase.
Thanks Dominic.
We just don't honour it.
Sign a deal with us?
The UK will be a sovereign free country as we voted for. If the EU has issues with domestic laws then they can take that to arbitration etc not our courts.
You are cheering a plan to make Britain an International pariah
I think it's right that NI decided it's future.
I think if the EU and the UK interpret the EU differently then that should be decided by international arbitration not our courts.
The Irish backstop existed to prevent a customs border on the island of Ireland. Both May’s Agreement, and the signed agreement established alternative arrangements to the otherwise legal necessity of this happening under a no deal Brexit.
The Brexiteers think that they can tear the Agreement up and there will be no Customs border. And if there is then it will be entirely the EU’s choice, not their legal imperative. Which is b*ll*x or at least will be without smuggling on an enormous scale. Which the U.K. will inevitably look to combat as much as the EU.
The EU can deal with the UK through international arbitration just as any other country can deal with foreign countries because that's what we will be.
You just can't abide by the fact we are going to be sovereign can you?
Signing the WA was bad because it is a shitty deal.
Reneging on the shitty deal you signed is also bad.
I'm going to do what I've criticised HYUFD for, and add all the Conservative Don't Know/Won't Says to Biden.
Johnson and Cummings are either unaware or don't care about the demon they COULD be unleashing.
She went on to say that this must be seen in the context that the negotiations have to conclude by the 15th October and expects this will focus minds.
However, I do not agree with breaching a treaty and I would actually have preferred for Boris just to confirm that without movement in the negotiations this week the UK will leave on a no deal and everyone should make arrangements as necessary
It remains to be seen just how this plays out over the next 6 weeks
Nothing lasts forever.
Paragraph 2 is directly from the Adolf Hitler playbook, or any other tinpot dictator you care to mention.
Has he died?
What next? Do they buckle at Putin's brinkmanship over Belarus?
Do you think US courts take US law and the US Constitution as precedence or "international law" if they directly conflict? They of course take domestic law as supreme which it must be for all sovereign countries.
Disputes under international law are to be resolved internationally not domestically.
Time for work!
Many people claimed that Tony Blair broke international law with the Iraq War. If Blair did break international law invading Iraq then why didn't domestic law stop him?
The answer of course is Parliament authorised the Iraq War and Parliament trumps so called international law domestically. Always has, always will.
Maybe the EU shouldn't have insisted on resolving that before trade talks? Just an idea.
That scheduling of talks was their choice. What happens from 1 January is our choice.
Tory Brexiteers never understood how Europe worked. The rules being imposed were usually written by British diplomats
Tory Brexiteers don't understand how trade works. Whether it be GATT24 or "is Dover-Calais important" they have shown repeatedly they don't have a clue
Tory Brexiteers don't like details. IDS infamously shown up for the cretin he is by saying "we don't need to stinking
badgesdetails and then whining that the agreement he hadn't written had "betrayed" him by having stuff in it he didn't likeTory Brexiteers don't read agreements. Johnson couldn't have been clearer. No Tory would stick a border down the Irish Sea. Then signs a treaty sticking a border down the Irish Sea. Then says he hasn't stuck a border down the Irish Sea. Then instructs his ministers to maker arrangements for trade once the border down the Irish Sea comes into effect.
Shagger has torn up the deal because he didn't understand what was in it. Its a Manifesto Promise which HYUFD insists the Tories always stick to. Except when its the "oven ready deal" proffered as a key component of the Tory manifesto which their own MPs will be whipped to defeat. Aside from the reputational damage of taking a big shit on international law, likely counter parties to future deals will be laughing hard as the UK demonstrates it doesn't understand trade or agreements as it seeks trade agreements.
Expect us to be stitched up a kipper.
I do not know but I would be interested if an independent voice could advise on the legal status of the WDA in the event of no deal
I am not comfortable with breaching a treaty and like so much on Brexit controversy prevails all around
And as far as the EU and Putin are concerned do you really think Merkel will withdraw from the Nord Stream energy supply from Russia
Isn't the WA on these issues little more than an "agreement to try to agree"? Not sure if the norms of international law will be the same as English law, but here that is mighty difficult to enforce as a legal obligation....
Hungary, Belarus, China, its not a great precedent.
You might also be underestimating how unlikely a big polling error is. I don't know how valid it is to compare, but in the 2nd round of the 2017 French presidential election the polling average underestimated Macron's lead by 10%.
OTOH it's interesting that one of the biggest polling errors of recent years (several times bigger than Trump Clinton, or the Brexit referendum) massively overestimated the less socially acceptable option - no shy Le Pen voters...
In the short term this would mean the breaking of the GFA and a border on the island of Ireland.
Philip doesn't care. He believes that this would lead to a United Ireland. He favours a United Ireland. He believes that other UK Govt policies are leading inevitably to Scottish Independence. He favours Scottish Independence.
Therefore he is entirely comfortable coming on here and defending UK Govt policy which will lead to the outcomes he favours. It doesn't matter to him that the UK Govt doesn't (we presume) support his outcomes.
I assume he also doesn't think the UK should bother trying to sign trade deals with other countries since other countries are not going to sign deals knowing that the UK will attempt to rewrite them whenever they discover something they don't like in them.
(Insert your own four letters)
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1302866493424783361
As for Brexit, honour, trust, negotiations, power, respect for the law, its all been said already, so many times. Sad.
The WA provisions for the customs border on the Irish sea were designed to prevent the return of customs infrastructure on the Northern/Southern Irish border, regardless of the outcome of trade talks.
They now say they will repudiate these provisions in the event of no deal.
Is Govt policy now in favour of the return of customs infrastructure on the Irish border in the event of no deal? Or perhaps they've got the "electronic solution" oven ready to go?
I knew there was a reason you voted for Claire Fox.
https://youtu.be/d7NFfUOJwDE
Keeping his promise.
See:
https://twitter.com/Amelia_Torode/status/1302874712742277120
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1302869746694717440?s=20
So to Cummings' gesture. "We will tear up the GFA if you don't give us a trade deal on our terms". The response from the EU should be equally blunt.
Currently standards and regulations are aligned and there is a LPF which is a great start.
1. Both parties agree that the other party shall [participate]/[contribute] in any proposals to change standards or regulations. (This is to enable each party's concerns to be properly taken into account by the other party).
2. Both parties agree that if either party decides to change standards or regulations, it will give the other party [12] months notice. (This is to enable the other party to decide whether the change is acceptable and, if not, make appropriate preparations).
3. Both parties agree that if any such change is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).
This preserves frictionless trade and avoids the rule maker/rule taker argument and respects UK (and EU) sovereignty and interests. It also avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.
Good point that this will lead to a loss of trust even if it is only floated and not carried out. Negotiating partners, not just the EU, will look to lock down any future agreement to greatest extent possible. This is in the context of the UK quite legitimately looking for a lighter touch, more flexible governance for relationships.
One point from me. New Covid cases rose 50% yesterday. That the government threw out this bombshell now is suspiciously coincidental.
https://twitter.com/Usherwood/status/1302870447948738561