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.
And you're with me too. Which is granite. Together we cannot be wrong.
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
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 .
As I said earlier the UK will start vaccinations in November.
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.
Apart from that, great posts.
Not at all, I think you've misunderstood completely what I'm saying.
Form: I think the whole world takes what is going on with a pinch of salt, this is a hardball negotiation they all know that. We'll see what happens.
Content: I didn't praise the government for "ditching" the Irish Sea border as I don't care about it.
What I am concerned about and what I think the government is responding to are the many reports that the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol as a backdoor for what they call "State Aid" regulations in the event they fail to reach an agreement now.
If the EU does intend to abuse the protocol then I think it would be entirely responsible and right to "tidy up" any problems and move on. If the EU wants an LPF agreement they should negotiate and reach an agreement now, not to attempt to abuse the NI Protocol to implement one by the back door.
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
Not tempted by RAF sorties over Brussels if we don;t get what we want? its not like they would face much opposition.
Maybe we could work out a sortie rota system with the Russians, now we are a rogue state that doesn't live up to our international obligations...
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
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.
So Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad after all. Johnson is keen to follow his example in certain respects. Neville Chamberlain would not have been impressed.
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 .
As I said earlier the UK will start vaccinations in November.
Is that a Boris start in November?
In which case which year (just so we arent disappointed)
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
Thing is, when a non straight Biden/Trump question is posed, in a poll Trump often does much better.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
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 .
As I said earlier the UK will start vaccinations in November.
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...
"At just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.
There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.
The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax."
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.
So Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad after all. Johnson is keen to follow his example in certain respects. Neville Chamberlain would not have been impressed.
Johnson has always modelled himself more on Churchill than Chamberlain. The former knew how much bits of paper were worth when push came to shove.
Its about an outcome that keeps the Brexiteers quiet. Because the thing is you see , there are rather a lot of them, and they vote a lot.
Totally agree.
I should also add Johnson believes his own rhetoric and he does actually think every time that it will be a good outcome. No-one else should believe it,if they are sensible. But as a consequence of what you correctly point out, absolutely everything is sacrificed, including the United Kingdom itself, to keep a large, noisy and entirely unsensible minority on board.
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
Thing is, when a non straight Biden/Trump question is posed, in a poll Trump often does much better.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
Well who can blame them if so. There should not be a taboo around metal illness but sadly there is.
Vague sense given to Tory and Brexit Party voters that Boris is standing up for them.
Amplified 10x by triggering the #FBPE crowd and Remainery media into shouting shrilly about it.
Job done then. I suspect the government’s view on whether we will get a deal is the same as most voters (and European politicians) at this point: “Couldn’t care less love”.
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
Because that would require the EU to believe that you might stick to it and Boris has just trashed any remaining credibility.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
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.
So Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad after all. Johnson is keen to follow his example in certain respects. Neville Chamberlain would not have been impressed.
Johnson has always modelled himself more on Churchill than Chamberlain. The former knew how much bits of paper were worth when push came to shove.
What the John Rentoul massive are really shrieking about is that at last Britain is playing realpolitik.
With Putin on its doorstep, the truth is that the defence spending shy EU can do with Britain's moral and military backing
Trump wants to quit, and goodness knows what a Biden administration would be like or how long it would last.
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
So you (and PT) are fully signed up for Jingoism?
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
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.
So Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad after all. Johnson is keen to follow his example in certain respects. Neville Chamberlain would not have been impressed.
Johnson has always modelled himself more on Churchill than Chamberlain. The former knew how much bits of paper were worth when push came to shove.
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
So you (and PT) are fully signed up for Jingoism?
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
'We will defend our island (and its overseas territories) whatever the cost maybe' as Churchill said.
The UK still has the 8th strongest military in the world, Spain is 20th, Argentina 43rd
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
So you (and PT) are fully signed up for Jingoism?
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
I don't want to fight but if we need to then we should.
If you're not prepared to then those who are will write the rules.
While of course being prepared to should mean you don't have to.
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
Thing is, when a non straight Biden/Trump question is posed, in a poll Trump often does much better.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
Because that would require the EU to believe that you might stick to it and Boris has just trashed any remaining credibility.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
I think it's fine to sabre rattle or to tailor your announcements for domestic consumption; we see it all the time around the world. But if you are doing that you need to stay on the right line of getting anyone outside the country to take an interest. By all means talk bollocks to your own people but don't try to enlist others' compliance in your bollocks.
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
Thing is, when a non straight Biden/Trump question is posed, in a poll Trump often does much better.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
Interestingly, I don't think China actually reneged on its treaty obligations concerning Hong Kong unlike this proposal for the Withdrawal Agreement. At least it's arguable. Its obligations under the Joint Declaration are limited.
The key commitment is this one [abridged]
Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association ... will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
On a narrow interpretation they are covered as long as they have some law on the topic. There is no commitment to representative government and it explicitly says it's at the discretion of the Chinese government whether they hold elections.
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
Because that would require the EU to believe that you might stick to it and Boris has just trashed any remaining credibility.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
I think it's fine to sabre rattle or to tailor your announcements for domestic consumption; we see it all the time around the world. But if you are doing that you need to stay on the right line of getting anyone outside the country to take an interest. By all means talk bollocks to your own people but don't try to enlist others' compliance in your bollocks.
Johnson failed on that vital element.
Except we are rattling towards them and it's working. There's increasing reports from the EU coming along the lines of they're concerned that in their view the UK is crazy enough to go ahead with no deal.
I'm which case mission accomplished.
May and Robbins were never believed. Frost and Boris are.
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
So you (and PT) are fully signed up for Jingoism?
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
I don't want to fight but if we need to then we should.
If you're not prepared to then those who are will write the rules.
While of course being prepared to should mean you don't have to.
You're of a fighting age aren't you Philip? Perhaps if you sign up now you will be fully trained by the time we cross the start line.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
Thing is, when a non straight Biden/Trump question is posed, in a poll Trump often does much better.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
What's a non straight Biden/Trump question?
Who do you think will win the election?
Who do you think will win the debate?
Don t both those questions require a Biden or Trump answer?
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
Because that would require the EU to believe that you might stick to it and Boris has just trashed any remaining credibility.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
I think it's fine to sabre rattle or to tailor your announcements for domestic consumption; we see it all the time around the world. But if you are doing that you need to stay on the right line of getting anyone outside the country to take an interest. By all means talk bollocks to your own people but don't try to enlist others' compliance in your bollocks.
Johnson failed on that vital element.
Except we are rattling towards them and it's working. There's increasing reports from the EU coming along the lines of they're concerned that in their view the UK is crazy enough to go ahead with no deal.
I'm which case mission accomplished.
May and Robbins were never believed. Frost and Boris are.
Is that the sound of BMW and Mercedes forcing their governments to accede to our demands?
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
Yet another anti Government commentator. Why not try a bit harder?
You want to ignore the points made because the commentator is 'anti-government'? I've never heard of him, is he 'anti-government', or did you mean that his views are so he can be ignored?
Anyway on the points raised:
Would 'No Deal' be a good outcome?
Were the 'A' Level results 'robust & dependable'?
Is our Track & Trace system 'world beating'?
Is our Covis response a 'massive success'?
Was the deal with the EU 'oven ready?
They seem valid questions, even though the answers are pretty obvious.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
Interestingly, I don't think China actually reneged on its treaty obligations concerning Hong Kong unlike this proposal for the Withdrawal Agreement. At least it's arguable. Its obligations under the Joint Declaration are limited.
The key commitment is this one [abridged]
Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association ... will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
On a narrow interpretation they are covered as long as they have some law on the topic. There is no commitment to representative government and it explicitly says it's at the discretion of the Chinese government whether they hold elections.
To be clear, I totally reject what the Chinese Government is doing in Hong Kong. I am making a point on the law.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
So you (and PT) are fully signed up for Jingoism?
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
I don't want to fight but if we need to then we should.
If you're not prepared to then those who are will write the rules.
While of course being prepared to should mean you don't have to.
You're of a fighting age aren't you Philip? Perhaps if you sign up now you will be fully trained by the time we cross the start line.
What start line? I'm not calling for war, all I am saying is that if anyone invades the UK and declares war on us then we should defend ourselves.
Do you think there's a single volunteer in the military who disagrees with that statement?
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
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?
War in defence of Gibraltar as of any other British territory if invaded yes, much as we defended the Falklands by sending a taskforce to recapture them after Argentina invaded.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
So you (and PT) are fully signed up for Jingoism?
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
I don't want to fight but if we need to then we should.
If you're not prepared to then those who are will write the rules.
While of course being prepared to should mean you don't have to.
You're of a fighting age aren't you Philip? Perhaps if you sign up now you will be fully trained by the time we cross the start line.
You sure? I increasingly wonder why he's not back at school yet.
Yet another anti Government commentator. Why not try a bit harder?
You want to ignore the points made because the commentator is 'anti-government'? I've never heard of him, is he 'anti-government', or did you mean that his views are so he can be ignored?
Anyway on the points raised:
Would 'No Deal' be a good outcome?
Were the 'A' Level results 'robust & dependable'?
Is our Track & Trace system 'world beating'?
Is our Covis response a 'massive success'?
Was the deal with the EU 'oven ready?
They seem valid questions, even though the answers are pretty obvious.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
Channel Islands to France then?
Presumably Spain is giving up Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, Canada is getting Alaska, Corsica is going back to Italy, the French won’t mind either about Guadalupe, Martinique, their half of St Martin ( nor the Dutch their half, not Aruba for that matter), nor Reunion?
I suppose we’ll get the Faroes because the Danes will clearly see they’re an anomaly and hand them over no probs?
Mmm. Unless a supersharp and silver tongued Trump exposes his opponent as a bumbling incoherent fool who can neither follow his impeccable logic nor even string a couple of simple sentences together in feeble response it will be a Biden win.
Thing is, when a non straight Biden/Trump question is posed, in a poll Trump often does much better.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
What's a non straight Biden/Trump question?
Who do you think will win the election?
Who do you think will win the debate?
And in Colorado Trump scored far higher on that than he actually got in the election.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
Both of your solutions are entirely reasonable and if the EU wants a deal enough it can and should compromise and agree to those reasonable terms.
For those PB punters who missed OGH's suggestion of backing the Democrats to win Texas at 4.8 (4.61 net of Betfair's commission), where the net odds have since shortened to below 4.0, it's still possible to back them at 4.5 with either 888sport or Unibet.
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
Because that would require the EU to believe that you might stick to it and Boris has just trashed any remaining credibility.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
I think it's fine to sabre rattle or to tailor your announcements for domestic consumption; we see it all the time around the world. But if you are doing that you need to stay on the right line of getting anyone outside the country to take an interest. By all means talk bollocks to your own people but don't try to enlist others' compliance in your bollocks.
Johnson failed on that vital element.
Except we are rattling towards them and it's working. There's increasing reports from the EU coming along the lines of they're concerned that in their view the UK is crazy enough to go ahead with no deal.
I'm which case mission accomplished.
May and Robbins were never believed. Frost and Boris are.
Is that the sound of BMW and Mercedes forcing their governments to accede to our demands?
Yes.
If there is a deal to be reached (and it very much remains an if) then it will be roughly on the UK's proposed terms on these issues because - and repeat after me - we hold all the cards.
Here's an idea: since Boris, IDS and the others have belatedly got round to reading the Withdrawal Agreement they signed and ratified, and discovered that what sensible people were saying at the time was right, why doesn't Boris go back to the EU and ask them if they wouldn't mind going back to the original version of the Irish protocol which Theresa May managed to negotiate? It was markedly superior to the Boris version.
Because that would require the EU to believe that you might stick to it and Boris has just trashed any remaining credibility.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
I think it's fine to sabre rattle or to tailor your announcements for domestic consumption; we see it all the time around the world. But if you are doing that you need to stay on the right line of getting anyone outside the country to take an interest. By all means talk bollocks to your own people but don't try to enlist others' compliance in your bollocks.
Johnson failed on that vital element.
Except we are rattling towards them and it's working. There's increasing reports from the EU coming along the lines of they're concerned that in their view the UK is crazy enough to go ahead with no deal.
I'm which case mission accomplished.
May and Robbins were never believed. Frost and Boris are.
Is that the sound of BMW and Mercedes forcing their governments to accede to our demands?
Yes.
If there is a deal to be reached (and it very much remains an if) then it will be roughly on the UK's proposed terms on these issues because - and repeat after me - we hold all the cards.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes. State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic. So they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that. In that case EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
'The Princess Bride' cast is reuniting and Ted Cruz is livid about why https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/06/media/princess-bride-reunion-trnd/index.html The cast of "The Princess Bride" is reuniting to raise money for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin -- inconceivable to Texas Senator and Princess Bride superfan Ted Cruz.
Donors to the Wisconsin Democrats will receive invitations to a livestream on September 13 at 7 pm ET for a script read of William Goldman's 1987 cult classic. The star-studded cast, including Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, Carol Kane, Chris Sarandon, Mandy Patinkin, Wallace Shawn, Billy Crystal and director Rob Reiner have agreed to join the virtual table read. A cast Q&A will be moderated by Patton Oswalt after the performance. "Anything you donate will be used to ensure that Trump loses Wisconsin, and thereby the White House," the donation page says. The event sent Cruz's torture machine to 50. In a tweet Saturday, Cruz called The Princess Bride "perfect" and said he wishes it would stay out of "Hollywood politics." Elwes, who played the movie's hero, Westley, responded that Cruz should "leave the fire swamp."...
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
Channel Islands to France then?
Presumably Spain is giving up Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, Canada is getting Alaska, Corsica is going back to Italy, the French won’t mind either about Guadalupe, Martinique, their half of St Martin ( nor the Dutch their half, not Aruba for that matter), nor Reunion?
I suppose we’ll get the Faroes because the Danes will clearly see they’re an anomaly and hand them over no probs?
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
Channel Islands to France then?
Presumably Spain is giving up Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, Canada is getting Alaska, Corsica is going back to Italy, the French won’t mind either about Guadalupe, Martinique, their half of St Martin ( nor the Dutch their half, not Aruba for that matter), nor Reunion?
I suppose we’ll get the Faroes because the Danes will clearly see they’re an anomaly and hand them over no probs?
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
As if anyone cared about the details of the deal. Leavers were queuing up to trash it regardless of the content.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
It can.
It has.
It doesn't mean it is right though.
It's a terrible analogy but if we go with it - as regards balance of power - I'm afraid the EU is China and we are Hong Kong.
No it isn't, Hong Kong has less than a 100th the population of China, the UK has about a fifth the population of the EU.
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
Yet another anti Government commentator. Why not try a bit harder?
You want to ignore the points made because the commentator is 'anti-government'? I've never heard of him, is he 'anti-government', or did you mean that his views are so he can be ignored?
Anyway on the points raised:
Would 'No Deal' be a good outcome?
Were the 'A' Level results 'robust & dependable'?
Is our Track & Trace system 'world beating'?
Is our Covis response a 'massive success'?
Was the deal with the EU 'oven ready?
They seem valid questions, even though the answers are pretty obvious.
My point was what is the point in posting tweet after tweet from people opposed to the Government saying exactly the same thing. It is ruining this site.
To reply to your points:
I have no idea whether No Deal would be a good outome, but I am 98% certain there will be a deal
There were no exams so of course the A Level results were not robust and dependable. I can see why the Govt tried to calm down the teachers over optomistic expected results but it was never going to work. I have seen no alternative idea.
The Track & trace system seems pretty good. I have no idea if it is world beating but they are tracing thousands of people a week so it is working.
I am unsure if our early Covid response could have been much better. It was a new diesease and before they new what had hit them tens of thousands of people in this Country were infected. The best advice they have given was the wash your hands message. I really don't know about closing airports as the entire aviation industry would have collapsed. They managed to get the public to follow the lockdown which I didn't think would happen especially in inner cities. I don't agree with the wearing masks in shops idea, People feel invicible and there is no longer any social distancing which has led to the increase in cases. The Treasury's response has been world class. All the websites they have set up to help have been slick and easy to use. The protect the NHS message though understandable went too far. In reality most hospitals were under pressure for only 2-3 weeks (some had no pressure at all) and then the cases dropped off significantly and other illnesses have not been treated. The number of deaths from Covid is slightly more than a bad flu season. We have been honest with our statistics, other countries not so much so it is hard to know how we compare. I think the economy is recovering well.
The "oven ready" analogy was daft.
What I would say is I would hate to be a politician now. There seem to be sources realising/leaking info all day every day. Every move you make is torn apart daily. It just seems a awful workplace existence.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
The UK doesn't have to align with the EU State Aid regime but the EU will ensure it will pay the highest possible price if it doesn't. My post aims to explain why State Aid is a key issue when other things aren't.
Blimey this withdrawal agreement news means Britain is turning into a rogue state like Putin's Russia !!
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
The logic from PB Tories this morning is that China can do what it likes with HK by unilaterally amending the agreement
i think
It can.
It has.
It doesn't mean it is right though.
It's a terrible analogy but if we go with it - as regards balance of power - I'm afraid the EU is China and we are Hong Kong.
No it isn't, Hong Kong has less than 100th the population of China, the UK has about a fifth the population of the EU.
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
Perhaps the Conservatives are too weak to play the cards they have and we need a real leader like Farage?
A more interesting survey than the one on courier services they sent me.
Here in northern France, outdoor mask wearing is close to 90% in the town centre, largely because it has been declared a mask required area and the square and pedestrianised area is dotted about with manned security/sanitation points. Has any UK town done the same?
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
The UK doesn't have to align with the EU State Aid regime but the EU will ensure it will pay the highest possible price if it doesn't. My post aims to explain why State Aid is a key issue when other things aren't.
Sorry if I have missed this but does anyone know what are the State Aid terms in the EUs FTAs with Canada and others?
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
On the LPF there is no compromise the EU can make other than removing it. It is a deal breaker. I'm more than happy for the UK to sign up to a baseline agreement on state aid with an independent arbitration process, but the UK will never sign up to dynamic alignment. If they drop that and accept a frozen in time baseline we can get on with signing an agreement. I don't know enough about fish to make a judgement in that, but I get a sense it is as big a red line as the LPF so the EU will need to give way and live with the existing mechanism that Norway uses.
The State Aid issue is fairly easy to describe but difficult to solve. The circle to square is that the UK has a State Aid regime that is essentially identical to that of the EU but where it is not required to follow the EU. The scenario that needs to be addressed is this one:
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes and because State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic, they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.
Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that, but otherwise EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk unless the UK does so. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
If the EU wanted us to have a LPF, they should have given a deal to Cameron that meant we stayed in. No LPF is a consequence of us leaving, although the EU have still barely woken up to this conseqence.
Muppets.
The UK doesn't have to align with the EU State Aid regime but the EU will ensure it will pay the highest possible price if it doesn't. My post aims to explain why State Aid is a key issue when other things aren't.
Sorry if I have missed this but does anyone know what are the State Aid terms in the EUs FTAs with Canada and others?
EU is sovereign, it chooses what kind of deals get issued to which third countries.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
In both instances what matters is the wishes of the current inhabitants. As with NI, if and when that changes then the status of those territories should change. Until then it is not up to outside parties either in the UK, Argentina or Spain to force them to do something they don't want to do.
Personally I am happy for Argentina to have the Falklands and Spain to have Gibraltar. They are geographical anomalies.
The idea that big countries should naturally control all the small territories that surround them is a dangerous line of thinking.
Good point, but I don't think we should have these 2 either. I think we have less claim to them. Happy for Gibraltar to be independent (not that it is any of my business) but I don't see why we should have it. The Falklands is just a nonsense.
Perhaps because the people there have expressed their desire for the status quo?
Again good point and I can see very justifiable for Gibraltar. I'm struggling re the Falklands. I'm not sure how reliable we are either. If someone invades we go and defend them yet we have been willing to remove people from an island and give it away before which isn't a good look.
Comments
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1302931945018585088?s=20
Shriek ScottxP and the John Rentoul massive.
Its about an outcome that keeps the Brexiteers quiet. Because the thing is you see , there are rather a lot of them, and they vote a lot.
I am not advocating invading non British territory however no of course not
Form: I think the whole world takes what is going on with a pinch of salt, this is a hardball negotiation they all know that. We'll see what happens.
Content: I didn't praise the government for "ditching" the Irish Sea border as I don't care about it.
What I am concerned about and what I think the government is responding to are the many reports that the EU wants to abuse the NI Protocol as a backdoor for what they call "State Aid" regulations in the event they fail to reach an agreement now.
If the EU does intend to abuse the protocol then I think it would be entirely responsible and right to "tidy up" any problems and move on. If the EU wants an LPF agreement they should negotiate and reach an agreement now, not to attempt to abuse the NI Protocol to implement one by the back door.
Sadly in 12 months time when they discover the reality of what they wanted - Boris's name will be mud...
Maybe we could work out a sortie rota system with the Russians, now we are a rogue state that doesn't live up to our international obligations...
In which case which year (just so we arent disappointed)
And 24 months ago.
And 60 months ago.
Its almost as if a large number of Americans don;t want to admit they are Trump supporters.
There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.
The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax."
I should also add Johnson believes his own rhetoric and he does actually think every time that it will be a good outcome. No-one else should believe it,if they are sensible. But as a consequence of what you correctly point out, absolutely everything is sacrificed, including the United Kingdom itself, to keep a large, noisy and entirely unsensible minority on board.
i think
Vague sense given to Tory and Brexit Party voters that Boris is standing up for them.
Amplified 10x by triggering the #FBPE crowd and Remainery media into shouting shrilly about it.
Job done then. I suspect the government’s view on whether we will get a deal is the same as most voters (and European politicians) at this point: “Couldn’t care less love”.
The UK might not be a pariah state (yet!) but we seem to be heading towards having a pariah govt.
Until the Tories lose power, there is nothing that can be done.
It has.
With Putin on its doorstep, the truth is that the defence spending shy EU can do with Britain's moral and military backing
Trump wants to quit, and goodness knows what a Biden administration would be like or how long it would last.
Treaties? do me a favour.
"We don't want to fight but by Jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too"
Except these days, ships, army and money are all in short supply.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1302963644993601537?s=20
The UK still has the 8th strongest military in the world, Spain is 20th, Argentina 43rd
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
If you're not prepared to then those who are will write the rules.
While of course being prepared to should mean you don't have to.
Johnson failed on that vital element.
Who do you think will win the debate?
The key commitment is this one [abridged]
Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association ... will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
On a narrow interpretation they are covered as long as they have some law on the topic. There is no commitment to representative government and it explicitly says it's at the discretion of the Chinese government whether they hold elections.
I'm which case mission accomplished.
May and Robbins were never believed. Frost and Boris are.
"Brussels diplomats say they are willing to make concessions, including on key issues like state aid and fishing but that the UK must do the same, including - and this is as much a bottom line for the EU as it is hard to swallow for the UK - signing up to safeguards for the EU's single market."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54025314
Anyway on the points raised:
Would 'No Deal' be a good outcome?
Were the 'A' Level results 'robust & dependable'?
Is our Track & Trace system 'world beating'?
Is our Covis response a 'massive success'?
Was the deal with the EU 'oven ready?
They seem valid questions, even though the answers are pretty obvious.
In ten years time, no-one in Europe will mention the name "Barnier" without spitting and cursing.
Do you think there's a single volunteer in the military who disagrees with that statement?
We will see what is agreed once the real negotiations begin.
PB Tories going to explain this away!
In which case shouldn't it be treated as sub judice?
No.
Yes.
No and yes.
Yes.
Presumably Spain is giving up Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, Canada is getting Alaska, Corsica is going back to Italy, the French won’t mind either about Guadalupe, Martinique, their half of St Martin ( nor the Dutch their half, not Aruba for that matter), nor Reunion?
I suppose we’ll get the Faroes because the Danes will clearly see they’re an anomaly and hand them over no probs?
All ok?
Shifting the scale a bit France also obviously owns the 2 islands off their coast (UK/Ireland).
For those PB punters who missed OGH's suggestion of backing the Democrats to win Texas at 4.8 (4.61 net of Betfair's commission), where the net odds have since shortened to below 4.0, it's still possible to back them at 4.5 with either 888sport or Unibet.
If there is a deal to be reached (and it very much remains an if) then it will be roughly on the UK's proposed terms on these issues because - and repeat after me - we hold all the cards.
Later peeps!
You must be a parody.
Germany, France and the UK each have a steel plant. There isn't really enough business to keep all three plants going.
- Germany moves first and starts subsidising its plant. France calls foul under EU State Aid rules so Germany backs off. The UK doesn't need to do anything; its plant is protected by the French move.
- France subsidises its plant; Germany stops it and protects the UK.
- UK subsidises its plant; Germany and France can't do anything about it because the UK isn't subject to EU State Aid rules.
Broad equivalence is OK for environmental and labour regulation. Countries and businesses can leverage differences between State Aid regimes. State Aid regimes are a constantly moving target as we have seen with the Covid epidemic. So they would need to be updated in step to close off the differences and avoid that shopping exercise.Now the UK can say, we are not going along with that. In that case EU member states are putting their high profile businesses and jobs at risk. Which is why there is a lot of sensitivity about State Aid and why the EU will demand a high price from the UK unless it does resolve the issue.
https://twitter.com/CoppetainPU/status/1302967477173923842
Note especially numbers 7, 8 and 10, which are statements of fact, not forecasts.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/06/media/princess-bride-reunion-trnd/index.html
The cast of "The Princess Bride" is reuniting to raise money for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin -- inconceivable to Texas Senator and Princess Bride superfan Ted Cruz.
Donors to the Wisconsin Democrats will receive invitations to a livestream on September 13 at 7 pm ET for a script read of William Goldman's 1987 cult classic. The star-studded cast, including Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, Carol Kane, Chris Sarandon, Mandy Patinkin, Wallace Shawn, Billy Crystal and director Rob Reiner have agreed to join the virtual table read. A cast Q&A will be moderated by Patton Oswalt after the performance.
"Anything you donate will be used to ensure that Trump loses Wisconsin, and thereby the White House," the donation page says.
The event sent Cruz's torture machine to 50. In a tweet Saturday, Cruz called The Princess Bride "perfect" and said he wishes it would stay out of "Hollywood politics."
Elwes, who played the movie's hero, Westley, responded that Cruz should "leave the fire swamp."...
Muppets.
https://twitter.com/flaxter/status/1302950165423120384
The EU military is also nowhere near as strong as the Chinese army and Hong Kong only has a volunteer force and police no army, the British military is in the top 10 most powerful in the world and the British economy also in the global top 10
To reply to your points:
I have no idea whether No Deal would be a good outome, but I am 98% certain there will be a deal
There were no exams so of course the A Level results were not robust and dependable. I can see why the Govt tried to calm down the teachers over optomistic expected results but it was never going to work. I have seen no alternative idea.
The Track & trace system seems pretty good. I have no idea if it is world beating but they are tracing thousands of people a week so it is working.
I am unsure if our early Covid response could have been much better. It was a new diesease and before they new what had hit them tens of thousands of people in this Country were infected. The best advice they have given was the wash your hands message. I really don't know about closing airports as the entire aviation industry would have collapsed. They managed to get the public to follow the lockdown which I didn't think would happen especially in inner cities. I don't agree with the wearing masks in shops idea, People feel invicible and there is no longer any social distancing which has led to the increase in cases. The Treasury's response has been world class. All the websites they have set up to help have been slick and easy to use. The protect the NHS message though understandable went too far. In reality most hospitals were under pressure for only 2-3 weeks (some had no pressure at all) and then the cases dropped off significantly and other illnesses have not been treated. The number of deaths from Covid is slightly more than a bad flu season. We have been honest with our statistics, other countries not so much so it is hard to know how we compare. I think the economy is recovering well.
The "oven ready" analogy was daft.
What I would say is I would hate to be a politician now. There seem to be sources realising/leaking info all day every day. Every move you make is torn apart daily. It just seems a awful workplace existence.
Here in northern France, outdoor mask wearing is close to 90% in the town centre, largely because it has been declared a mask required area and the square and pedestrianised area is dotted about with manned security/sanitation points. Has any UK town done the same?
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/wisconsin_biden_51_trump_43
Nationally it has 51% Trump approval, 49% disapprove today.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_sep07