Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
On that note, do we know who is getting the spokesperson job for the press conferences that are meant to be starting next month?
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
Yes and no.
In the Senate 2018 was a hugely disappointing night for the Democrats, going backwards.
If 2020 were to be a repeat of 2018's senate results it'd be ~289 Democrat ECVs with the gain of AZ, PA, WI and MI. That'd be enough.
Are you assuming that the states which didn't vote in 2018 don't flip? There are 3 or 4 swing states that did not vote for the Senate in 2018.
I'm assuming Ohio and Montana stay GOP. I mean MT almost certainly will - Ohio could flip but it's got a hefty 2016 margin for Biden to overturn (8.13%).
Other than that the competitive states unpolled in the senate of 2018 were New Hampshire (Dem), North Carolina for the GOP. Colorado, Iowa, Georgia, Virginia are pretty much collectively a wash/uncompetitive and only really go in a strong victory for either side.
The most important states - PA, WI, MN, NV, MI, AZ and FL all had senate races.
GA and IA have been flagged up a couple of times today as toss-up states (I personaly think that if GA has a chance of going blue then Biden has won). Also RCS-n has repeatedly said he can see NH swinging to Trump.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
As I understand it, this is about the interpretation of the NI protocol. That part of the WA kicked the can down the road to the trade agreement (you know, they really ought to have been done in parallel, but hey).
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
We are now entering the final phase of our negotiations with the EU.
The EU have been very clear about the timetable. I am too.
There needs to be an agreement with our European friends by the time of the European Council on 15 October.
If we can’t agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on.
We’ll then have a trading arrangement with the EU like Australia’s.
I want to be absolutely clear that, as we have said right from the start, that would be a good outcome for the UK.
As a Government we’re preparing, at our borders and at our ports, to be ready for it.
We will have full control over our laws, our rules, and our fishing waters.
We will have the freedom to do trade deals with every country in the world. And we will prosper mightily as a result.
We will of course always be ready to talk to our EU friends even in these circumstances. Our door will never be closed and we will trade as friends and partners – but without a free trade agreement.
There is still an agreement to be had and we will continue to work hard in September to achieve it.
It is one based on our reasonable proposal for a standard free trade agreement like the one the EU has agreed with Canada and so many others.
Even at this late stage, if the EU are ready to rethink their current positions and agree this I will be delighted.
But we cannot and will not compromise on the fundamentals of what it means to be an independent country to get it.
That is the pledge I make to you. If you stand with me, I hope you’ll join our Party today, so we have the backing we need during this crucial phase of our negotiations >>
Become a Member
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Yes, it sadly would be an election result to reflect an America utterly split down the middle and riven by culture war.
As long as they are postmarked as being posted on or before election day then mail in ballots can still be counted if received days after in Ohio or Virginia or California or Texas for example and if they arrive on election day by say 7pm they will often be processed after in person ballots too
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
If it's sabre rattling then it's the worst possible thing to sabre rattle about. It makes the government look untrustworthy and trade deals are based on trust more than anything else. The WA may be a rubbish deal in some areas but the government agreed to it and it will need mutual consent to make changes to it or an arbitration process.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Clinton would probably have won Michigan had all the votes been counted correctly last time round. Detroit machines will doubtless break down again but the legal framework in MI this time round is much more Democrat friendly with Whitmer having the governorship and the key AG role also being a Democrat.
We are now entering the final phase of our negotiations with the EU.
The EU have been very clear about the timetable. I am too.
There needs to be an agreement with our European friends by the time of the European Council on 15 October.
If we can’t agree by then, then I do not see that there will be a free trade agreement between us, and we should both accept that and move on.
We’ll then have a trading arrangement with the EU like Australia’s.
I want to be absolutely clear that, as we have said right from the start, that would be a good outcome for the UK.
As a Government we’re preparing, at our borders and at our ports, to be ready for it.
We will have full control over our laws, our rules, and our fishing waters.
We will have the freedom to do trade deals with every country in the world. And we will prosper mightily as a result.
We will of course always be ready to talk to our EU friends even in these circumstances. Our door will never be closed and we will trade as friends and partners – but without a free trade agreement.
There is still an agreement to be had and we will continue to work hard in September to achieve it.
It is one based on our reasonable proposal for a standard free trade agreement like the one the EU has agreed with Canada and so many others.
Even at this late stage, if the EU are ready to rethink their current positions and agree this I will be delighted.
But we cannot and will not compromise on the fundamentals of what it means to be an independent country to get it.
That is the pledge I make to you. If you stand with me, I hope you’ll join our Party today, so we have the backing we need during this crucial phase of our negotiations >>
Become a Member
Yours sincerely,
Boris Johnson signature Boris Johnson Prime Minister
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
This quote from the Times story on Cummings secret lair is instructive today...
Dominic Cummings, addressing staff gathered in “mission control” on Tuesday morning, was blunt about the motivation behind Downing Street’s new outpost in the heart of the Cabinet Office.
The response to the Covid-19 crisis had too often been a “shitshow”, he said. This new unit would try to put an end to any “miscommunication” between the political and administrative arms of government.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Yes.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
Annoyingly, it has not been updated but, trying to match the graph to the dates, it looks like mail in ballots requests sent out are going to be off the charts - from what I can tell is it looks like it is past his x15 top end scenario.
Also, it looks like Wake County (which has Raleigh) has a disproportionately high % of the requests - from what I can tell of the census data etc, it looks like Wake probably has c. 1/10 of the population but it looks like it is over 1/6 of the postal ballots asked for. The other thing that should be +ve for Democrats is that the number of African-Americans who have asked for mail in ballots is far higher at this stage than it was in 2016 (17%).
He is doing an update today so worth looking at what he says then. His view is that the key will be the ballots returned. There is also the issue of how much the mail in ballots cannibalising the in person voting. But have to say that, if I was Biden, I would pleased with the data so far.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Yes, it sadly would be an election result to reflect an America utterly split down the middle and riven by culture war.
As long as they are postmarked as being posted on or before election day then mail in ballots can still be counted if received days after in Ohio or Virginia or California or Texas for example and if they arrive on election day by say 7pm they will often be processed after in person ballots too
Thanks. I knew about the post dated votes. So you are saying that most posted votes are counted on the day as well? They just have to get there in time for the count. That is then later adjusted for those that are valid because of the post mark but arrive late.
Shouldn't that mean that except for very close battles the result on the day is more or less correct?
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
The WA is not unilaterally amendable.
Stop making yourself look like a Tit
The WA isn't.
British statute which implements it in Britain and which British courts must use to interpret it is however unilaterally amendable.
If that puts us in breach that's for other countries to deal with on the international stage, not our courts to deal with.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
So apparently the issue is that postal votes take much longer to count than regular votes, because they need to verify signatures and things. In some states - frustratingly the article doesn't say which - they're allowed to do some or all of the process beforehand, which might even make it *faster* in these places. Given the stuff about people using delayed postal counts to spread doubt about the results, I wouldn't be surprised if they just did the whole thing together rather than releasing some provisional numbers that only included the in-person votes; Usually postal votes didn't particularly favour one side or the other so this may not have been much of a consideration, but if there's anyone who doesn't want half the nation thinking the vote counters robbed them, it's the vote counters.
Anyhow I imagine we'll be able to get numbers from states that do count postal votes quickly that will give us some idea about how far the postal votes are leaning Dem, and use that to guess what's going to happen in the slow states.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Clinton would probably have won Michigan had all the votes been counted correctly last time round. Detroit machines will doubtless break down again but the legal framework in MI this time round is much more Democrat friendly with Whitmer having the governorship and the key AG role also being a Democrat.
Very poor communications by the government today. Even if the WA was never seriously going to be scrapped, it looked as if it was (Nigel, Redwood etc. were in ecstasy) and then Boris bottled it under the EU's withering gaze. I really can't see whom Boris was trying to impress.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
On that note, do we know who is getting the spokesperson job for the press conferences that are meant to be starting next month?
Levi Bellfield is going to do it from HMP Frankland via Zoom.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
That's happening for me on the main page, its not happening on Vanilla.
Checking Governorships (And it might matter in a tight race).
The GOP have FL and AZ Dems have PA, MI, WI and NC.
In 2016 the relevant governorships were much more GOP friendly - in fact I think they had ALL of the above! I expect Roberts would send stuff back to the states if anything got to SCOTUS.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Yes.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
So you are happy for all the treaties that we have signed with all those other countries and organisations over the years - NATO, the UN, The previously mentioned Treaty of Utrecht, every one of our international trade agreements - to become completely worthless bits of paper? You would leave us exposed to any country that decided they weren't happy with their side of any deal. Say goodbye to Gibraltar and our Antarctic territories for a start.
Who is going to risk signing a trade deal with us in the future? We wouldn't even get back our seat on the WTO or any other international bodies.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Yes.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
If you want the UK to agree trade deals with other countries then this attitude will make it impossible. We agreed to and ratified the WA, it needs two party consent or an arbitration process to change. If the government wants to change it then open up talks with the EU after the trade deal or no deal or start the arbitration process. Unilaterally changing the WA is a completely retrograde step, even the Trump administration stuck to the rules of NAFTA until they agreed the changes to it with Canada and Mexico.
With Trump's was against postal voting, the most interesting impact could be down the ballot.
If Biden has a good night in Texas and keeps it within a couple of points, look for for the Democrats to pick up at least 3/4 house districts in Texas as well as flipping the Texas house of reps where the current GOP advantage is 83/67.
Next year will also be the next round of redistricting. Some may remember the power the 2010 wave gave the republicans when they were in control of redistricting in most states last time. So if the Dems can make decent inroads at the state legislature level in places like Texas and North Carolina, that's going to count big style in 2021.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
The WA is not unilaterally amendable.
Stop making yourself look like a Tit
The WA isn't.
British statute which implements it in Britain and which British courts must use to interpret it is however unilaterally amendable.
If that puts us in breach that's for other countries to deal with on the international stage, not our courts to deal with.
European Commission spokesman: The full implementation of the WA and in particular the NI protocol are essential, these are obligations under international law, this is a matter of trust, and this is a prerequisite and condition for completing future relationship negotiations.
You are fighting the pre U Turn terrirory thet has now been surrendered
Very poor communications by the government today. Even if the WA was never seriously going to be scrapped, it looked as if it was (Nigel, Redwood etc. were in ecstasy) and then Boris bottled it under the EU's withering gaze. I really can't see whom Boris was trying to impress.
Or there's been talking between some combination of von der Leyen, Barnier, Johnson, Frost etc that has basically led to a "we need to talk" moment and the sabre-rattling has done its job.
We will see soon enough. There's always this kind of sabre-rattling before negotiations get going in earnest.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
The WA is not unilaterally amendable.
Stop making yourself look like a Tit
The WA isn't.
British statute which implements it in Britain and which British courts must use to interpret it is however unilaterally amendable.
If that puts us in breach that's for other countries to deal with on the international stage, not our courts to deal with.
It is for our courts to deal with if it makes two pieces of legislation mutually exclusive. Basically the only way you get out of the WA under British law is by reneging on it completely.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
So apparently the issue is that postal votes take much longer to count than regular votes, because they need to verify signatures and things. In some states - frustratingly the article doesn't say which - they're allowed to do some or all of the process beforehand, which might even make it *faster* in these places. Given the stuff about people using delayed postal counts to spread doubt about the results, I wouldn't be surprised if they just did the whole thing together rather than releasing some provisional numbers that only included the in-person votes; Usually postal votes didn't particularly favour one side or the other so this may not have been much of a consideration, but if there's anyone who doesn't want half the nation thinking the vote counters robbed them, it's the vote counters.
Anyhow I imagine we'll be able to get numbers from states that do count postal votes quickly that will give us some idea about how far the postal votes are leaning Dem, and use that to guess what's going to happen in the slow states.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Yes.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
So you are happy for all the treaties that we have signed with all those other countries and organisations over the years - NATO, the UN, The previously mentioned Treaty of Utrecht, every one of our international trade agreements - to become completely worthless bits of paper? You would leave us exposed to any country that decided they weren't happy with their side of any deal. Say goodbye to Gibraltar and our Antarctic territories for a start.
Who is going to risk signing a trade deal with us in the future? We wouldn't even get back our seat on the WTO or any other international bodies.
Its a bloody stupid idea.
They already are worthless bits of paper. International law is a sham, it is realpolitik that runs the world, has always been so.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
It is not just you. @edmundintokyo posted a javascript hack yesterday but otherwise try to interest @rcs1000 in the problem.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
He has to go.
The demise of both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in the near future would for me signify a return towards some semblance of maturity in politics. I'm more confident of the first than the second however.
An antagonistic no deal Brexit in 2020 would fit the BJ retiring in 2021 rumours very well. He can claim sunny success in delivering what the people wanted, and let someone else clean up his shitty mess.
Could trigger his retirement? - I hereby revise my opinion that No Deal has no upside.
Checking Governorships (And it might matter in a tight race).
The GOP have FL and AZ Dems have PA, MI, WI and NC.
In 2016 the relevant governorships were much more GOP friendly - in fact I think they had ALL of the above! I expect Roberts would send stuff back to the states if anything got to SCOTUS.
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
I know this isn't a great solution, but in Chrome, Ctrl+Shift+J to open the console, then paste:
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
I never said the WA should be ditched. I said the WA should be (and has been) implemented, but that UK courts should look to UK laws to settle UK court cases.
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Clinton would probably have won Michigan had all the votes been counted correctly last time round. Detroit machines will doubtless break down again but the legal framework in MI this time round is much more Democrat friendly with Whitmer having the governorship and the key AG role also being a Democrat.
Another plus for the Democrats is that Hawkins-2020 doesn't have the profile Stein had back in 2016 so likely they'll bleed off fewer votes to the left this time round.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
Me too.
I also get it. It's probably the browsers changing things under rcs1000/Vanilla, they're always fiddling with the the ability of multiple sites in the same window (eg you load the main page from pb and the comments from vanilla) to find things out about each other as people find new ways to abuse it, so they probably broke something that made the vanilla window the right size.
Broadly agree with this, I'm not on Texas directly though - it'll pay via ECV spreads if it comes in. 538 has it after IA, OH, GA, FL and AZ (And PA, WI, MI) to fall to Biden.
I can see it ending up more Democrat than Ohio and Iowa but probably not Georgia, Florida and North Carolina so I'd have thought the fewest ECVs Biden could realistically gain TX with would be 372. Fivethirtyeight identifies a slightly more extreme scenario where PA, NH, MN and NE-2 are GOP and TX goes red. That's 337 ECVs and as far as you can credibly stretch underlying 2020 state swing - any other scenario of TX going blue with fewer ECVs is sub 1%.
My main bets come into their own in the event of a clear Biden victory. Then I've dropped on just the one mitigator the other way. Trump to hang on to Florida on the fixed odds.
Certainly possible. I don't think Florida is a key state for Biden at any rate - definitely is for Trump.
Yes. I've put that on so that if it's a very close Biden EC win I still make a few quid. It would be galling otherwise. Course, if Trump wins the election, it will only cushion my consequential losses a little, but that's fair enough. If Trump is re-elected I've called the whole thing badly wrong and deserve to get a pasting on the £££. And on here of course.
I promised I will be very generous Kinablu
Well the dogs would be £50 better off. That buys a lot of pedigree chum.
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Yes.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
So you are happy for all the treaties that we have signed with all those other countries and organisations over the years - NATO, the UN, The previously mentioned Treaty of Utrecht, every one of our international trade agreements - to become completely worthless bits of paper? You would leave us exposed to any country that decided they weren't happy with their side of any deal. Say goodbye to Gibraltar and our Antarctic territories for a start.
Who is going to risk signing a trade deal with us in the future? We wouldn't even get back our seat on the WTO or any other international bodies.
Its a bloody stupid idea.
They already are worthless bits of paper. International law is a sham, it is realpolitik that runs the world, has always been so.
And being known as a country that abides by its treaty commitments over a long period of time is part of that realpolitik. You are basically happy to throw away the reputation built up over decades, even centuries, for the sake of some short term political fad. And don't give me the BS about sovereignty; that too is subject also to realpolitik.
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
Three million vaccines in December. The Minister of Health, Salvador Illa, has advanced this Monday that Spain could receive in December 3 million doses of the vaccine against COVID-19 in which the University of Oxford works, if it passes the clinical trials .
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
I never said the WA should be ditched. I said the WA should be (and has been) implemented, but that UK courts should look to UK laws to settle UK court cases.
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
You were very happy that the govt had ditched it. That is the same as being happy that it was ditched.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Clinton would probably have won Michigan had all the votes been counted correctly last time round. Detroit machines will doubtless break down again but the legal framework in MI this time round is much more Democrat friendly with Whitmer having the governorship and the key AG role also being a Democrat.
Another plus for the Democrats is that Hawkins-2020 doesn't have the profile Stein had back in 2016 so likely they'll bleed off fewer votes to the left this time round.
One major error from the BBC in that article though. “Fleecehold” is used to describe the now very common practice, now that leasehold is out of vogue, of selling freehold houses with an estate management company complete with permission fees, etc.
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
All politics is local, I think it's about internal Conservative politics: The game is to act extremely hard-brexitty, create a big cheering vs booing contest with yourself in the middle where all the hard-brexitty people are cheering and enjoying watching their enemies booing, then once they're getting really, really into the cheering, make whatever compromise you need to get a deal and hope they're too committed to cheering to stop.
I find it genuinely baffling that @Philip_Thompson et al who cheered this on this morning could have done so while knowing that this was the obvious implication.
Comes back to my contention that he is an old-fashioned troll: arguing absurd points to try to get the chat room members to turn on themselves.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
I never said the WA should be ditched. I said the WA should be (and has been) implemented, but that UK courts should look to UK laws to settle UK court cases.
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
You were very happy that the govt had ditched it. That is the same as being happy that it was ditched.
The bots have been re-programmed with the latest update from Tory Central. They have no memory of their former claims....
my son's school is seeing the first blindingly obvious problem with the current Covid strategy.
The Year 7s, who went back a day early on Wednesday last week, have been told that one of their number has tested positive for Covid 19. As a result the whole Year Group has to self isolate for 14 days. This is bearable but obviously disruptive for them, not least because they have only just started at the senior school.
The bigger problem for the school is that any of the teaching staff who were in contact with the boy (which for these [purposes means being in the same room) must also self isolate for 14 days. So straight away the teaching staff is being reduced for the rest of the school.
I don't see how this is going to be a sustainable policy in the medium to long term.
It's not. We did mention this last week...
Sorry I have been off PB for a while as I am having technical issues with it and also too much work.
Loading the twitter syndications on here is taking a very long time the last few days on my pc (chrome).
Not sure what is causing my issue but basically I can't scroll down to the bottom of the comments and there is no means of reloading. The comments get cut off at a random point, often half way through a comment.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
All politics is local, I think it's about internal Conservative politics: The game is to act extremely hard-brexitty, create a big cheering vs booing contest with yourself in the middle where all the hard-brexitty people are cheering and enjoying watching their enemies booing, then once they're getting really, really into the cheering, make whatever compromise you need to get a deal and hope they're too committed to cheering to stop.
If the plan is to get Nigel Farage so happy that he doesn't notice the betrayal (because one rational way of acting is to deny the next Farage vehicle any parking space), that seems... optimistic.
(To be fair and honest, this sounds like the system working the way it should. But reopening schools is going to put a lot of pressure on the testing system, and school provision this year is going to have a lot of holes in it. I don't think either of these points has been fully absorbed by anyone yet.)
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
Again, I am finding myself in full agreement with you, Max.
Very poor communications by the government today. Even if the WA was never seriously going to be scrapped, it looked as if it was (Nigel, Redwood etc. were in ecstasy) and then Boris bottled it under the EU's withering gaze. I really can't see whom Boris was trying to impress.
It was telling the EU in no uncertain terms that we will not back down so they better pull their finger out and give us a great deal. Recalls for me my poker days. When I was bluffing I used to try to telegraph that fact with a stern face, but it rarely if ever worked. Then one day I tried something different. In addition to the stern face I announced to the table (in a stern voice) that I was NOT bluffing. I really did have a terrific hand of cards (I said) and if they knew what was good for them they would fold and leave the pot to me. This didn't work either. In fact, there were a few smirks and everybody raised me. But of course big ticket politics is not like a poker game, it's far more complex, so perhaps it will work for the government in this case.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
I never said the WA should be ditched. I said the WA should be (and has been) implemented, but that UK courts should look to UK laws to settle UK court cases.
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
You were very happy that the govt had ditched it. That is the same as being happy that it was ditched.
I was happy the UK government was making UK laws supreme in UK courts.
We will see what happens now. To be honest I see no contradiction between this afternoon's statement and last night's press reports. Even if the Government were to overwrite elements of the WA they would do so saying "we are honouring the agreement in full, this is just a tidying up exercise" because again that is realpolitik, that is what governments always do.
Governments don't just come out and say "we are repudiating this" they say "we're honouring our commitments" then proceed with doing what they wanted to do anyway.
You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.
Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.
C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
I’m not interested in your childish whining.
Nothing is long-term.
Everything lasts only as long as all parties want it to last and can be rescinded or replaced when any party loses interest. That is why sensible treaty writers ensure that the deal is one all parties will want to keep ongoing.
If we want to agree something, chew it up and then spit it out once its served its purpose then that's life. Next time anyone agrees a deal with the UK maybe they should ensure its one the UK won't lose interest in after 12 months?
If the UK signs a deal and heralds its greatness, how are the other parties supposed to know that the UK doesn't mean it?
It's not something I support.
I can't support things that impinge upon the UK's integrity and honour.
Hopefully our still independent Supreme Court will put Boris back in his box just like they did with him shameful prorogation.
As reneging on an international treaty was not part of the Tory manifesto, it is quite possible - probable even - that the House of Lords will hold the relevsant legislation up.
Maybe that’s what they want. Culture war stuff.
The people vs HoL, followed by the people vs judges. Theyll probably draft it badly so its illegal in UK law deliberately to get judges to rule against them.
If Parliament has passed the law then by definition it is legal, conventions cannot overrule statute and we have no written constitution, our whole constitution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament.
The HoL can only delay not block, the Commons will win ultimately
Surely Parliament passed a law to approve the WA. As such any subsequent law must abide by the WA or the WA must be amended. Which needs both parties to agree.
I reckon the Supreme Court would deal with this one in no time at all. You cannot pass laws which contradict existing statute without the existing statute being amended or falling.
If the existing WA were amended by Parliament to avoid no border in the Irish Sea and the new law was passed by Parliament to confirm that and signed off by the Crown then the Supreme Court would have to accept that, it is a body which ultimately must respect the will of Crown in Parliament, not respect the norms of international treaties
You cannot unilaterally amend a treaty. You can accept it in full or reject it in full. Those are the only options open to you.
You can accept it in full then overwrite part of it, countries do this. If the other parties don't care then that will be the end of the matter effectively, if the other parties do care you'll be in breach of the agreement and it could cause diplomatic as opposed to legal problems.
No you can't. At least not unilaterally. And it causes legal issues as we are signatories to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. Again that is incorporated into British law so the Supreme Court would be ruling on that as well.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Yes.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
So you are happy for all the treaties that we have signed with all those other countries and organisations over the years - NATO, the UN, The previously mentioned Treaty of Utrecht, every one of our international trade agreements - to become completely worthless bits of paper? You would leave us exposed to any country that decided they weren't happy with their side of any deal. Say goodbye to Gibraltar and our Antarctic territories for a start.
Who is going to risk signing a trade deal with us in the future? We wouldn't even get back our seat on the WTO or any other international bodies.
Its a bloody stupid idea.
As Philip correctly stated it is our military that protects Gibraltar ultimately in reality not the Treaty of Utrecht, it is our military which is key to our NATO membership and we are permanent members of the UN Security Council.
It looks entirely possible that Trump's appointee to run the US Post Office might have a history of serious campaign finance violations, reimbursement for others' donations being illegal...
James O'Brien @mrjamesob · 5h There’s still a widespread failure to understand that Brexiters were long ago reduced to cheering *anything* that Johnson serves up - even, perhaps especially, when it is the polar opposite of what they were cheering yesterday. Anything to postpone the humiliation of reality...
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the government is a sensible decision-making body trying to direct things in a coherent way, all properly coordinated by a PM and his team. Instead it's a leaderless hotch-potch of clueless SPADs who keep mediocre ministers in the dark until some crisis breaks through which cause one or two of them to panic, inevitably forcing a U-turn when the consequences become clearer.
This has been the position on Brexit all along, but it's also been the case on the Covid-19 response since early April.
A top Democratic digital firm warned of a potential “red mirage” on Election Night, in which in-person vote tallies show Trump in the lead until mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 swing the race in the direction of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Josh Mendelsohn, the CEO of the Democratic data and analytics firm Hawkfish, warned of a situation in which the vote count on election night could show a massive victory for Trump.
In 2018, on the night, the story was "Hugely disapointing foer the Democrats, Trump is indomitably strong"
After all the votes were counted "Oh, it was a Blue wave"
If Trump wins on the night he will declare victory...
But declaring victory means nothing if the opponent doesn't concede, and the count is still continuing. The important thing is that every vote gets counted in the individual states, and the media report the current situation properly.
Trump can rant and rave as much as he likes, but if he loses the election, he's not going to be President on 21st January
I do hope you are right but I can envisage lots of unpleasant scenarios that aren't as straight forward as that.
Trump on election night, 'I have won the election night vote and been re elected.'
Biden on election night, 'the mail in ballots are still being processed and I am getting most of them and I will not concede.'
A very likely scenario which could go on for weeks if not months and need the US Supreme Court to decide as it did in 2000
Agree, but I think it will be 100 times messier. I envisage not just legal attempts to cease the counts, but also illegal ones like armed militia doing so claiming the post ins are rigged and also it being in umpteen states not just the one as in 2000.
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Yes, it sadly would be an election result to reflect an America utterly split down the middle and riven by culture war.
As long as they are postmarked as being posted on or before election day then mail in ballots can still be counted if received days after in Ohio or Virginia or California or Texas for example and if they arrive on election day by say 7pm they will often be processed after in person ballots too
Thanks. I knew about the post dated votes. So you are saying that most posted votes are counted on the day as well? They just have to get there in time for the count. That is then later adjusted for those that are valid because of the post mark but arrive late.
Shouldn't that mean that except for very close battles the result on the day is more or less correct?
No as it still takes several days for mail in ballots to be processed sometimes even if they arrive on the day
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
+1
But it's domestic PR fluff imo and for practical purposes can be ignored. Bet the EU are.
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
All politics is local, I think it's about internal Conservative politics: The game is to act extremely hard-brexitty, create a big cheering vs booing contest with yourself in the middle where all the hard-brexitty people are cheering and enjoying watching their enemies booing, then once they're getting really, really into the cheering, make whatever compromise you need to get a deal and hope they're too committed to cheering to stop.
If the plan is to get Nigel Farage so happy that he doesn't notice the betrayal (because one rational way of acting is to deny the next Farage vehicle any parking space), that seems... optimistic.
It's not aimed at Farage, it's aimed at brexitty Tories, and the brexitty press.
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
I never said the WA should be ditched. I said the WA should be (and has been) implemented, but that UK courts should look to UK laws to settle UK court cases.
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
So you are happy for all the treaties that we have signed with all those other countries and organisations over the years - NATO, the UN, The previously mentioned Treaty of Utrecht, every one of our international trade agreements - to become completely worthless bits of paper? You would leave us exposed to any country that decided they weren't happy with their side of any deal. Say goodbye to Gibraltar and our Antarctic territories for a start.
Who is going to risk signing a trade deal with us in the future? We wouldn't even get back our seat on the WTO or any other international bodies.
Its a bloody stupid idea.
As Philip correctly stated it is our military that protects Gibraltar ultimately in reality not the Treaty of Utrecht
So, it is war then? You are supporting military action since your party has ballsed up the political solution?
When is the UK's version of Kristallnacht scheduled?
Lol so all the chat this morning was bullshit, government implementing the WA as normal. Honestly, the government needs a completely new communications team.
Or its saber-rattling to go with the 15 October deadline?
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Philip you lauded the govt ditching the WA because it had served its purpose and was outdated.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
I never said the WA should be ditched. I said the WA should be (and has been) implemented, but that UK courts should look to UK laws to settle UK court cases.
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
You were very happy that the govt had ditched it. That is the same as being happy that it was ditched.
I was happy the UK government was making UK laws supreme in UK courts.
We will see what happens now. To be honest I see no contradiction between this afternoon's statement and last night's press reports. Even if the Government were to overwrite elements of the WA they would do so saying "we are honouring the agreement in full, this is just a tidying up exercise" because again that is realpolitik, that is what governments always do.
Governments don't just come out and say "we are repudiating this" they say "we're honouring our commitments" then proceed with doing what they wanted to do anyway.
But hold on it's about form and content.
Form: we look like idiots on the world stage in front of everyone we really need to not look like idiots to.
Content: you said it was good that they had ditched it. Does that mean that you thought it was a bad agreement? Yes, yes it does because you specifically mentioned the border in the Irish Sea which you praised Boris for apparently ditching.
So your political antennae and understanding of how the world works is non-existent; and your political judgement as to what constitutes a good or bad agreement is also non-existent.
I actually don't understand Johnson's game with the WA. This is the kind of stunt you expect from India or other countries that don't respect international treaty law which makes trading and investing impossible with them. They use the same stupid "yeah but parliament is sovereign" excuse to leverage retrospective taxes and renege on previously agreed deals. The idea that we want to be in that category of international player is absolutely shameful.
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
+1
But it's domestic PR fluff imo and for practical purposes can be ignored. Bet the EU are.
Oh and btw was busy this morning but yes absolutely about no deal. You're still with me - it ain't happening.
Actually, to be fair, Boris is right that this really needs to be sorted by mid-October. He was even more right earlier when he said it should be sorted in July (which everyone seems to have forgotten he said).
In fact it's already too late to put in place the administrative arrangement companies will need on 1st Jan. It beggars belief that companies may not know by late October what trading relationship they'll be operating under just eight or nine weeks later, two weeks of which are the Christmas break. But then, belief has been beggared so often in this omnishambles that we shouldn't be too surprised.
Comments
Not sure why the post ins are not counted at the same time (or are they?) and it is only those arriving late but legal that are missing.
Maybe its got the EU to knock some heads together so they can start compromising with us and get a future agreement agreed . . . it is noticeable how many replies were along the lines of "if you do this you can't get a future agreement" and they're not saying that a future agreement isn't gettable.
If we can reach a future agreement before 15 October all this becomes moot anyway. All it takes is for the EU to compromise.
Are you really wanting to unravel the whole basis of our international legal position for this?
Fanbois. Huzzah!
BoZo. It's shit.
Fanbois. HUZZAH!
BoZo. I will renege on it.
Fanbois. HUZZAH HUZZAH !!
BoZo. By which I mean implement in full.
Fanbois. HUZZAH HUZZAH HUZZAH !!!
As long as they are postmarked as being posted on or before election day then mail in ballots can still be counted if received days after in Ohio or Virginia or California or Texas for example and if they arrive on election day by say 7pm they will often be processed after in person ballots too
Detroit machines will doubtless break down again but the legal framework in MI this time round is much more Democrat friendly with Whitmer having the governorship and the key AG role also being a Democrat.
Stop making yourself look like a Tit
Dominic Cummings, addressing staff gathered in “mission control” on Tuesday morning, was blunt about the motivation behind Downing Street’s new outpost in the heart of the Cabinet Office.
The response to the Covid-19 crisis had too often been a “shitshow”, he said. This new unit would try to put an end to any “miscommunication” between the political and administrative arms of government.
How's that working out for you, Dom?
I voted to take back control. If we didn't want to take back control we may as well have stayed in the EU. Call it the zeal of the convert, but I'm absolute on this matter: British laws, to be set by the British Parliament, ran by British governments answerable to British voters.
Anything international is subordinate to that as far as I'm concerned. The voter is supreme to me. If a voter votes for something against an international law, I am happy for the government to override international law.
http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2020/08/NC-ABM-Requests-8-24.html#more
Annoyingly, it has not been updated but, trying to match the graph to the dates, it looks like mail in ballots requests sent out are going to be off the charts - from what I can tell is it looks like it is past his x15 top end scenario.
Also, it looks like Wake County (which has Raleigh) has a disproportionately high % of the requests - from what I can tell of the census data etc, it looks like Wake probably has c. 1/10 of the population but it looks like it is over 1/6 of the postal ballots asked for. The other thing that should be +ve for Democrats is that the number of African-Americans who have asked for mail in ballots is far higher at this stage than it was in 2016 (17%).
He is doing an update today so worth looking at what he says then. His view is that the key will be the ballots returned. There is also the issue of how much the mail in ballots cannibalising the in person voting. But have to say that, if I was Biden, I would pleased with the data so far.
It is a pain for me as usually I would drop in a couple of times a day and look back through what has been discussed before commenting. Not possible now.
Shouldn't that mean that except for very close battles the result on the day is more or less correct?
British statute which implements it in Britain and which British courts must use to interpret it is however unilaterally amendable.
If that puts us in breach that's for other countries to deal with on the international stage, not our courts to deal with.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mail-in-absentee-ballots-early-voting-battleground-states-election-day/
So apparently the issue is that postal votes take much longer to count than regular votes, because they need to verify signatures and things. In some states - frustratingly the article doesn't say which - they're allowed to do some or all of the process beforehand, which might even make it *faster* in these places. Given the stuff about people using delayed postal counts to spread doubt about the results, I wouldn't be surprised if they just did the whole thing together rather than releasing some provisional numbers that only included the in-person votes; Usually postal votes didn't particularly favour one side or the other so this may not have been much of a consideration, but if there's anyone who doesn't want half the nation thinking the vote counters robbed them, it's the vote counters.
Anyhow I imagine we'll be able to get numbers from states that do count postal votes quickly that will give us some idea about how far the postal votes are leaning Dem, and use that to guess what's going to happen in the slow states.
vf.politicalbetting.com is working for me.
The GOP have FL and AZ
Dems have PA, MI, WI and NC.
In 2016 the relevant governorships were much more GOP friendly - in fact I think they had ALL of the above! I expect Roberts would send stuff back to the states if anything got to SCOTUS.
Who is going to risk signing a trade deal with us in the future? We wouldn't even get back our seat on the WTO or any other international bodies.
Its a bloody stupid idea.
If Biden has a good night in Texas and keeps it within a couple of points, look for for the Democrats to pick up at least 3/4 house districts in Texas as well as flipping the Texas house of reps where the current GOP advantage is 83/67.
Next year will also be the next round of redistricting. Some may remember the power the 2010 wave gave the republicans when they were in control of redistricting in most states last time. So if the Dems can make decent inroads at the state legislature level in places like Texas and North Carolina, that's going to count big style in 2021.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54023631
You are fighting the pre U Turn terrirory thet has now been surrendered
We will see soon enough. There's always this kind of sabre-rattling before negotiations get going in earnest.
The govt is now saying it will keep the WA.
Which position is the right one? Is it outdated or is it relevant? What is right - ditching it or keeping it?
TIA.
Worked a treat.
(Or just read the thread on Vanilla.)
That remains the case, nothing has changed. Only if the UK government changes the law to conflict with the Treaty would it be an issue and that hasn't happened - yet.
Another plus for the Democrats is that Hawkins-2020 doesn't have the profile Stein had back in 2016 so likely they'll bleed off fewer votes to the left this time round.
Odds are starting to look decidedly dodgy for some of us on here...
Any changes we want to the WA can probably be made via existing mechanisms within it, especially after a trade deal has been signed and bedded in for a few years. Ultimately both sides are completely lacking in trust of the other side (for good reason tbf) and the WA is lopsided but that won't hold forever, especially as the UK exits from the EU sphere of influence.
You are basically happy to throw away the reputation built up over decades, even centuries, for the sake of some short term political fad. And don't give me the BS about sovereignty; that too is subject also to realpolitik.
One major error from the BBC in that article though. “Fleecehold” is used to describe the now very common practice, now that leasehold is out of vogue, of selling freehold houses with an estate management company complete with permission fees, etc.
Comes back to my contention that he is an old-fashioned troll: arguing absurd points to try to get the chat room members to turn on themselves.
Meanwhile, in other news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54056155
(To be fair and honest, this sounds like the system working the way it should. But reopening schools is going to put a lot of pressure on the testing system, and school provision this year is going to have a lot of holes in it. I don't think either of these points has been fully absorbed by anyone yet.)
Edited extra bit: decided to curtail my insult.
Rwandan single mothers turn to online babysitting of Japanese kids
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/09/4f986b16fdf6-feature-rwandan-single-mothers-turn-to-online-babysitting-of-japanese-kids.html
We will see what happens now. To be honest I see no contradiction between this afternoon's statement and last night's press reports. Even if the Government were to overwrite elements of the WA they would do so saying "we are honouring the agreement in full, this is just a tidying up exercise" because again that is realpolitik, that is what governments always do.
Governments don't just come out and say "we are repudiating this" they say "we're honouring our commitments" then proceed with doing what they wanted to do anyway.
As for the WTO
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/wto-on-the-brink-as-chief-resigns-and-us-begins-process-of-withdrawal/
Louis DeJoy Reportedly Reimbursed Employees for GOP Donations Through Bonuses
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/louis-dejoy-reimburse-employees-republican-donations.html
@mrjamesob
·
5h
There’s still a widespread failure to understand that Brexiters were long ago reduced to cheering *anything* that Johnson serves up - even, perhaps especially, when it is the polar opposite of what they were cheering yesterday. Anything to postpone the humiliation of reality...
This has been the position on Brexit all along, but it's also been the case on the Covid-19 response since early April.
But it's domestic PR fluff imo and for practical purposes can be ignored. Bet the EU are.
By trying to convince the EU he is not bluffing, BoZo has convinced them he can't be trusted.
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1302954872166379523
Genius
More Americans predict Trump will win the presidential debates than Biden, USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll shows
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/06/poll-more-pick-donald-trump-over-joe-biden-win-debates/5707265002/
When is the UK's version of Kristallnacht scheduled?
Form: we look like idiots on the world stage in front of everyone we really need to not look like idiots to.
Content: you said it was good that they had ditched it. Does that mean that you thought it was a bad agreement? Yes, yes it does because you specifically mentioned the border in the Irish Sea which you praised Boris for apparently ditching.
So your political antennae and understanding of how the world works is non-existent; and your political judgement as to what constitutes a good or bad agreement is also non-existent.
Apart from that, great posts.
Most Labour voters would be upset if Scotland or Wales left the UK but only a plurality upset if Northern Ireland left
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1302932226607378433?s=20
In fact it's already too late to put in place the administrative arrangement companies will need on 1st Jan. It beggars belief that companies may not know by late October what trading relationship they'll be operating under just eight or nine weeks later, two weeks of which are the Christmas break. But then, belief has been beggared so often in this omnishambles that we shouldn't be too surprised.