Occasionally international treaties are likely to cause more trouble in the observance than the flouting.
for example, the Treaty of Versailles.
The Weimar Republic tried to honour its international obligations. It would have been vilified on here if it said it could not and would not pay reparations.
We all know how that turned out.
In this case Boris is trying to get a settlement that is not a national humiliation and does not unleash English nationalism
He is trying desperately to avoid the 'stab in the back' narrative Farage wants to use as a huge impetus to relaunch the brexit party.
And in this he is absolutely correct.
Or, in other words, Johnson is prepared to trash this country's international reputation, imperil the Northern Ireland peace process, bolster the SNP and put our economy at even greater risk because he is scared that Nigel Farage may take some votes from him.
Sorry but where have you been these past few years?
If Boris caves in, I would go as far as to say that is the end of the conservative party. For a generation certainly.
Many conservative voters are furious with the party as it is. On culture, on tax, on immigration, even on stuff like the BBC and loss of liberties.
A surrender brexit and they really can look out.
I;'ve been saying this for a while, whether Boris wants to cave or not, he cannot. And that's why he isn't.
Yep, as ever, it's not about the country, it's about the Tory party.
correct, and Boris could, I guess, if he wanted, do a Peel and sink his party 'for the good of Britain'
I'm really not sure this time though, it would ever recover, such is Boris's bargain with the electorate.
What I do think is it would be replaced by something much more radical. And semi=permanently.
And that would not be good for anybody.
You can all them fruitcakes and closet racists if you want. But there is no doubting that there are millions of them. Many millions. And they know what they want.
Which is?
To call the shots. Whatever the economic cost. We say who fishes in our waters. We say who can come to Britain. We say what they cultural rules are.
Don't go to them with reasons why they might be worse off economically. They have no interest in those reasons. They made those trade offs years ago.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
You think Trump will hold Wisconsin and Michigan?
I disagree with HYFUD's reliance solely on a pollster that did well in 2016 but poorly in 2018. I've said before and I'll say again that, in a 'surprise' election the pollster which is an outlier for the winning party will look good in some respects... but consistency is king and they don't have it.
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
Largely agreed.
On the latest polling averages this month Biden leads by 5% in Arizona, 5% in Wisconsin, 4.2% in Pennsylvania, 4% in Nevada, 3.7% in Minnesota, 2.6% in Michigan, 2.3% in Ohio, 1.8% in Florida and 0.6% in North Carolina.
So it is possible Biden could win Wisconsin and Minnesota could be won by Trump but as they both have 10 EC votes each that makes no difference to my overall EC prediction.
I think Trump will carry PA - if he is carrying OH and MI. AZ is harder to read but I expect the Republicans just hang on.
Interesting snippet. Smith and Weston said their gun sales were up 140% yoy from May to July in an investor call and they are ramping up to max capacity.
OK so using the kind of desperate logic you sometimes use, this suggests Republicans have as good as given up because they know Biden and Democrats will win, and they are buying guns before restrictions are introduced.
Err, no Kamski, calm now. The gun sales suggest that people are worried about crime so they are buying guns. A person who is worried enough about crime to buy a gun might be more receptive to a law and order message. 40% of gun purchases in May to July were made by first time buyers.
Also - the biggest leap in gun ownership demographic was Black people at +58%. Are they buying guns because they are scared of the Police or because of crime?
There is a worrying tendency to jump on any sort of reference point that goes against the Second Coming of the Messiah (i.e. Joe Biden) as though it is heresy.
Yes, the argument that gun sales prove that Biden will win is about as convincing as the argument you made the other day that the Biden campaign buying ads in the Midwest proves that Trump will win.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Your first point might mislead, I think. Treaties can be technically breached after falling into disuse or countries can notify parties that they will cancel all or part of the treaty in the expectation that the other party will go along with it. It is extraordinary to deliberately breach a live treaty and ignore remedies that already exist within it.
Consequences will be major I believe. I don't think the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU will alter people's perceptions.
Your last point is a good one. The reasons for the UK to go along with a Withdrawal Agreement are twofold: (1) It's a clean break to avoid arguments about residual obligations (2) it's a pay to play for a future relationship. Without it, the EU won't agree anything with the UK ever. However if you genuinely think that's a workable long term existence (which is neither Australian nor an arrangement) then maybe you don't need a Withdrawal Agreement.
But what about the border in the island of Ireland?
Yeah, it's a strange thing that the European Union should have a greater sense of responsibility for Northern Ireland, which isn't part of its territory, than the government of the so-called United KIngdom whose territory it is.
And NI is a responsibility for the EU. It complicates things for them too.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
You think Trump will hold Wisconsin and Michigan?
I disagree with HYFUD's reliance solely on a pollster that did well in 2016 but poorly in 2018. I've said before and I'll say again that, in a 'surprise' election the pollster which is an outlier for the winning party will look good in some respects... but consistency is king and they don't have it.
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
Largely agreed.
On the latest polling averages this month Biden leads by 5% in Arizona, 5% in Wisconsin, 4.2% in Pennsylvania, 4% in Nevada, 3.7% in Minnesota, 2.6% in Michigan, 2.3% in Ohio, 1.8% in Florida and 0.6% in North Carolina.
So it is possible Biden could win Wisconsin and Minnesota could be won by Trump but as they both have 10 EC votes each that makes no difference to my overall EC prediction.
I think Trump will carry PA - if he is carrying OH and MI. AZ is harder to read but I expect the Republicans just hang on.
Interesting snippet. Smith and Weston said their gun sales were up 140% yoy from May to July in an investor call and they are ramping up to max capacity.
OK so using the kind of desperate logic you sometimes use, this suggests Republicans have as good as given up because they know Biden and Democrats will win, and they are buying guns before restrictions are introduced.
Err, no Kamski, calm now. The gun sales suggest that people are worried about crime so they are buying guns. A person who is worried enough about crime to buy a gun might be more receptive to a law and order message. 40% of gun purchases in May to July were made by first time buyers.
Also - the biggest leap in gun ownership demographic was Black people at +58%. Are they buying guns because they are scared of the Police or because of crime?
There is a worrying tendency to jump on any sort of reference point that goes against the Second Coming of the Messiah (i.e. Joe Biden) as though it is heresy.
Yes, the argument that gun sales prove that Biden will win is about as convincing as the argument you made the other day that the Biden campaign buying ads in the Midwest proves that Trump will win.
Just maybe the reason black Americans are buying more guns is the mobs of nazi militia wondering around cities rather than to show their support for Trump.
8 deaths in hospital, 6 in the North West with 4 in just one hospital, TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
In Southern Areas there are just 1 or 2 deaths a week in Hospital
Sky announced 30 deaths today
Guessing some, if not a lot of them are from a notification backlog rather than 30 people actually dying yesterday. It's also a Tuesday so weekend reporting lag catching up.
30 deaths would be the highest reported figure since 9 July and far higher than the single-digit daily tallies of the last couple of weeks. It looks like the second wave is coming, not entirely unpredictably.
It's back dating
The actual plot of date of death looks like this -
That graph is rather deceptive when you take into account the fact that later dates will have more as yet unreported deaths than earlier dates. If that graph is flat, then deaths must, in reality, be increasing.
Apparently we have such a world beating Test and Trace that the rising numbers of cases identified are just better case finding. Or something. Certainly not relaxation of the night time economy and Rishi Meal Deals...
Only a self-imposed deadline by Boris that Boris, himself, imposed...
Exactly. The duress Boris was under was of his own making.
It's time for the men in grey suits to act. Boris is not up to the job. Get rid of him before he does something REALLY stupid.
A total misunderstanding of the politics of Britain. Let's say they got rid of Boris and called May back to negotiate some kind of client state agreement. A woman who took the tories to 17 per cent in the polls.
Precisely where do you think that would leave the conservative party? A political corpse floating in the water, that's where.
They could count on one thing over the next few years. Annihilation. And replacement by something much, much more radical.
So if you want to make Nigel Farage's day, just carry on as you are.
Oh no, my pandering to fascism is making people pander to fascism. The only way to fix it is to pander to fascism.
Comments
Don't go to them with reasons why they might be worse off economically. They have no interest in those reasons. They made those trade offs years ago.
Besides you liking one and not the other?
And NI is a responsibility for the EU. It complicates things for them too.
The Brexit argument since the very beginning.