Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
Cripes. One thing doing it, another actually saying it. Bill to be pulled and Gov't u-turn in by 5 o'clock ?
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They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.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.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
Have to say on some basic spreadsheet work if Trump does get up to 46% by November I probably rate his chances of winning higher than the 538 model does.
Doesn't that depend on third party votes? He won on 46% versus 48% in 2016 and of course could win on something like that again, but 46% v 53% (say) would be a really huge ask. I know that, mathematically, you can win the electoral college being well behind on popular vote, but possible doesn't mean at all likely.
Who resigned in 2013 when the Finance Act explicitly overruled international law? 🙄
You are confused - that act overruled international law for particular reasons.
Here Lewis saying he is breaking a law that was only voted into law earlier this year...
"for particular reasons"?
The UK has "particular reasons" here for acting in the way it is. In particular the joint committee the UK and EU created in the Withdrawal Agreement hasn't actually reached agreement in how some things will operate - and the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't create a fallback if the Joint Committee don't agree - so it makes sense for the UK to entirely within reason set a framework that will operate unless or until the Joint Committee does agree an alternative one.
It's very, very simple: a government that does not believe in the rule of law does not believe in democracy. And this government has made clear it does not believe in the rule of law.
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?
Yes
Ok - just checking.
Your forecast btw will win you £8.50 on our spread bet. Not too shabby.
It's funny how PB Tories hate the term gammon yet happily call people Remoaners at every turn. I happen to think both terms are as pathetic as each other
I have no objection to being called a Remoaner.
1) It removes the insult's effectiveness if I like it (or at least do not object)
2) It reminds them of my political position and unbending pigheadedness
Have to say on some basic spreadsheet work if Trump does get up to 46% by November I probably rate his chances of winning higher than the 538 model does.
Doesn't that depend on third party votes? He won on 46% versus 48% in 2016 and of course could win on something like that again, but 46% v 53% (say) would be a really huge ask. I know that, mathematically, you can win the electoral college being well behind on popular vote, but possible doesn't mean at all likely.
Oh yeah, my assumption there is that Biden stays still on 50.4% whilst Trump gains. If Biden added a percentage point to get to 51.4% then that's Biden on a safe 300 or so Electoral Votes.
30 always seemed crazily high. 6 is much more sensible.
When did 30 people be allowed to gather in a home? I struggle to follow the mess that is the comms on all this, but I thought it was still 6. Who the hell thought 30 was a good idea?
Does anybody pay any attention to these pronouncements any more? They have so much of Vicky Pollard about them...
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
Cripes. One thing doing it, another actually saying it. Bill to be pulled and Gov't u-turn in by 5 o'clock ?
Seems to be overegging the concept of "International Law" to me; afaik it is not the rulings of a single magisterium.
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
The precise words he has used in the Commons are these:-
“Yes - this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
“This” refers to the Bill which is going to be introduced.
It's funny how PB Tories hate the term gammon yet happily call people Remoaners at every turn. I happen to think both terms are as pathetic as each other
Is "gammon" racial? Is "Remoaner" racial?
I am a fat, ruddy-faced old bastard and a former Remainer, can I be both?
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.
Although I'd note the averages are influenced by who polls which state.
I don't believe Trafalgar have polled Nevada lately, and indeed burned their fingers badly there by predicting a 3% GOP win in the Senate race - fully 8% off the 5% Democrat cake-walk.
If they did it would no doubt shift averages (I note Emerson have done Nevada, although they were even more red-faced in 2018, being a huge 12% off, albeit their last poll was nearly a month from the election).
Have to say on some basic spreadsheet work if Trump does get up to 46% by November I probably rate his chances of winning higher than the 538 model does.
If Trump gets up to 46% by November then the 538 figures will change.
Rasmussen approval & Trafalgar I guess. But even Rasmussen isn't great for Trump having him 8 behind in the most rural (Outside solid GOP IA and IN) midwest state of WI. I'm not sure Trump is approaching this with analytical rigour
Pretty sure the last bit of even remotely rigorous analysis he did involved "grabbing 'em".
It's very, very simple: a government that does not believe in the rule of law does not believe in democracy. And this government has made clear it does not believe in the rule of law.
This govt is starting to resemble banana republic dictatorships. I have been saying so for some time.
I will add that we have not yet reached levels of Zimbabweness....
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.
Although I'd note the averages are influenced by who polls which state.
I don't believe Trafalgar have polled Nevada lately, and indeed burned their fingers badly there by predicting a 3% GOP win in the Senate race - fully 8% off the 5% Democrat cake-walk.
If they did it would no doubt shift averages (I note Emerson have done Nevada, although they were even more red-faced in 2018, being a huge 12% off, albeit their last poll was nearly a month from the election).
This is a good justification as to why forcasters will weight the poll averages according to pollster reliability and "in house effect".
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
The precise words he has used in the Commons are these:-
“Yes - this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
“This” refers to the Bill which is going to be introduced.
Does that mean that any MP who votes for it will be committing a crime?
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
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.
It's very, very simple: a government that does not believe in the rule of law does not believe in democracy. And this government has made clear it does not believe in the rule of law.
This govt is starting to resemble banana republic dictatorships. I have been saying so for some time.
I will add that we have not yet reached levels of Zimbabweness....
The empty shelves and the hyper inflation may come more quickly than it did for Mugabe. In all fairness to Johnson, Mugabe had the luxury of not having to navigate the Covid and Brexit minefields before reaching a state of oblivion
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
The precise words he has used in the Commons are these:-
“Yes - this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
“This” refers to the Bill which is going to be introduced.
Does that mean that any MP who votes for it will be committing a crime?
Not all law is criminal law. A country breaching treaty obligations isn't committing a criminal act, and nor are those lawmakers who are involved.
In any event, Parliamentary privilege applies to actions and statements in course of legislative work.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
My plan is to rob a bank but only in a small and very specific way.
All those furlough fraudsters: it was fraud but “in a very specific and limited way”.
We have the makings of a new Political Urban Dictionary:-
- “I was driving 30 miles to test my eyesight.” - “I am breaking the law in a very specific and limited way.” - “It was all the fault of a mutant algorithm.
Interestingly if the bill does not in fact break international law, Lewis must have misled the Commons and thus consider his resignation !
You only mislead the House if you knowingly present false information.
So this would only apply if he'd been advised it was all completely lawful and his claim was some kind of 3D chess move.
I thought this was the case previously but then I definitely lost that Amber Rudd next out bet and I don't recall her knowingly misleading parliament. Why did she go again ?
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
The precise words he has used in the Commons are these:-
“Yes - this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
“This” refers to the Bill which is going to be introduced.
Does that mean that any MP who votes for it will be committing a crime?
If I were Barnier, I would walk out of the talks today and say "The talks are over. There will be no further meetings. Period."
That will shoot Johnson's fox.
I wonder how much it is in the EU's interests to reach an agreement at all. They might consider it more prudent to wait until the UK is staggering under the consequences of no deal before negotiating in earnest.
My plan is to rob a bank but only in a small and very specific way.
All those furlough fraudsters: it was fraud but “in a very specific and limited way”.
We have the makings of a new Political Urban Dictionary:-
- “I was driving 30 miles to test my eyesight.” - “I am breaking the law in a very specific and limited way.” - “It was all the fault of a mutant algorithm.
I have to admit I have been very fortunate with the lockdown. I work from home most of the time anyway and the companies I am contracting with are all counted as essential so have continued to operate throughout the crisis. As such I have had the best of both worlds and certainly have ben very fortunate not to have to rely on the Government. I like to think that I would have to be in really desperate straits before I would accept any handouts but like so many things I don't actually know what my response would be until I was actually faced with that situation. We all like to think we are brave, honest and self sacrificing but we never really know until the moment of truth arrives.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
Without seeing the precise draft it is difficult to say. But it will very likely end up in the courts.
So it does not really solve the legal problem. Nor does it really solve the political problem of trying to reach agreement on how the NI Protocol should work.
And it creates additional problems because it raises the question of whether the government can be trusted, which makes reaching any sort of viable agreement even harder than it might otherwise be.
Interestingly if the bill does not in fact break international law, Lewis must have misled the Commons and thus consider his resignation !
You only mislead the House if you knowingly present false information.
So this would only apply if he'd been advised it was all completely lawful and his claim was some kind of 3D chess move.
I thought this was the case previously but then I definitely lost that Amber Rudd next out bet and I don't recall her knowingly misleading parliament. Why did she go again ?
As a human shield for the Prime Minister who had created the mess she went for.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
But in doing so they are accepting that they are negating the Withdrawal Agreement in its entirety, with all the consequences for our international standing that entails. At least that is what they should be accepting, but instead they are trying to claim they can make legal changes unilaterally without negating the whole treaty. It is utterly ignorant and arrogant.
If I were Barnier, I would walk out of the talks today and say "The talks are over. There will be no further meetings. Period."
That will shoot Johnson's fox.
I wonder how much it is in the EU's interests to reach an agreement at all. They might consider it more prudent to wait until the UK is staggering under the consequences of no deal before negotiating in earnest.
They are grown ups. It's true that their patience has been very sorely tested, and no doubt they are sick to the back teeth of this psychodrama, but they'll continue to engage if the UK wishes to do so. If it ends up in No Deal then they'll make the best of it, and wait for the UK government to come to its senses. Needless to say in such a scenario they won't be going out of their way to help us out of the mess, nor are they likely to be particularly cooperative in other areas of interest to us, such as dealing with illegal migrants.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
While that is in one sense true - Parliament clearly has the power to override the treaty if it does so specifically - what it cannot do is unilaterally modify an international treaty which it has agreed to be bound by in order to set aside some of its provisions in this manner. By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
Has Lewis actually said we will break int'l law on the floor of the commons or has he used words which could be interpreted that way. There's a big difference.
Cripes. One thing doing it, another actually saying it. Bill to be pulled and Gov't u-turn in by 5 o'clock ?
Perhaps not this time. The calculation could be that this plays well to the base. They will view it as MEGA and it might even lead to some caps being made.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
But in doing so they are accepting that they are negating the Withdrawal Agreement in its entirety, with all the consequences for our international standing that entails. At least that is what they should be accepting, but instead they are trying to claim they can make legal changes unilaterally without negating the whole treaty. It is utterly ignorant and arrogant.
Agreed. I don’t see any way around that conclusion.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
While that is in one sense true - Parliament clearly has the power to override the treaty if it does so specifically - what it cannot do is unilaterally modify an international treaty which it has agreed to be bound by in order to set aside some of its provisions in this manner. By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
And to pretend otherwise is the purest sophistry.
Good. Get on with it.
Britain is a free country and needs to do what is in its interests - and the Treaty hasn't worked since the Joint Committee it created hasn't come up with agreement on how to operate so the UK needs to set in place procedures or there'd be nothing there.
I wonder if that is that another deadweight Remoaner being cleared out?
Appointed while that totally impartial individual Dominic Grieve was Attorney General I see.
Why do you find it so difficult to understand the concept that a legal officer would have difficulty with the Government ignoring the law? Some on the Leave side would do well to remember the mess the Government got itself into last time it tried to interpret the law against its own legal advice.
Because that's where populism gets you.
If there is a conflict between what the law allows and what the will of the people (embodied in the current government) demands, the law must be wrong.
An attractive doctrine if you are in power and can't imagine ever being out of power. Otherwise, madness.
If the law is wrong then if only an institution existed with the power to change the law.
As we said yesterday, the law is not wrong. This is exactly the same law as maintains our trading agreements with nations all around the world, our membership of NATO and the UN and our control of Gibraltar and the Falklands. The trouble is the Government wants to both scrap the law where they object to it and keep the same laws where they are in our favour.
In the words of 'Show of Hands' they are suffering from Ignorance, Arrogance and Greed.
The law doesn't ensure our control of the Falklands. Our control of the Falklands is because of HMS Hermes and the rest of the ships and men who fought to ensure that the Falklands stayed free, along with the fact that the Belgrano ended at the bottom of the ocean. It wasn't a court case that settled it.
Our victory in the Falklands war relied upon getting the support of other countries through the application of the principles of International Law. Those very same principles our Government is now deciding to throw out of the window. It is fucking lunacy.
Those sounds you hear are the Russian and Chinese Embassies in London laughing their socks off.
Because those countries have never done just whatever they hell they please anyway before now?
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
We're much smaller than those countries/groups, English law (And the application of) is one of the big strengths of London in particular internationally for finance, contracts and law generally.
If I were Barnier, I would walk out of the talks today and say "The talks are over. There will be no further meetings. Period."
That will shoot Johnson's fox.
I wonder how much it is in the EU's interests to reach an agreement at all. They might consider it more prudent to wait until the UK is staggering under the consequences of no deal before negotiating in earnest.
They are grown ups. It's true that their patience has been very sorely tested, and no doubt they are sick to the back teeth of this psychodrama, but they'll continue to engage if the UK wishes to do so. If it ends up in No Deal then they'll make the best of it, and wait for the UK government to come to its senses. Needless to say in such a scenario they won't be going out of their way to help us out of the mess, nor are they likely to be particularly cooperative in other areas of interest to us, such as dealing with illegal migrants.
Because they've been ever so helpful in the first place anyway?
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
It's back to my mortgage analogy, Phil.
You have a mortgage agreement with the bank and then you decide unilaterally to amend the agreement whereby you don't have to make the monthly payments any more.
Those sounds you hear are the Russian and Chinese Embassies in London laughing their socks off.
Because those countries have never done just whatever they hell they please anyway before now?
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
The UK was always a player on the global stage, and the card we used to play was upholding a rules-based international order. Blatant hypocrisy means we will no longer be able to able to punch above our weight.
Those sounds you hear are the Russian and Chinese Embassies in London laughing their socks off.
Because those countries have never done just whatever they hell they please anyway before now?
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
We're much smaller than those countries/groups, English law (And the application of) is one of the big strengths of London in particular internationally for finance, contracts and law generally.
Those sounds you hear are the Russian and Chinese Embassies in London laughing their socks off.
Because those countries have never done just whatever they hell they please anyway before now?
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
We're much smaller than those countries/groups, English law (And the application of) is one of the big strengths of London in particular internationally for finance, contracts and law generally.
Size doesn't matter. Plenty of big, medium and small countries do whatever they please.
We're not smaller than Russia, our GDP is 173% of the size of Russia's.
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.
Although I'd note the averages are influenced by who polls which state.
I don't believe Trafalgar have polled Nevada lately, and indeed burned their fingers badly there by predicting a 3% GOP win in the Senate race - fully 8% off the 5% Democrat cake-walk.
If they did it would no doubt shift averages (I note Emerson have done Nevada, although they were even more red-faced in 2018, being a huge 12% off, albeit their last poll was nearly a month from the election).
That's why it's better to use the 538 averages, which adjust for such things
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
While that is in one sense true - Parliament clearly has the power to override the treaty if it does so specifically - what it cannot do is unilaterally modify an international treaty which it has agreed to be bound by in order to set aside some of its provisions in this manner. By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
And to pretend otherwise is the purest sophistry.
Good. Get on with it.
Britain is a free country and needs to do what is in its interests - and the Treaty hasn't worked since the Joint Committee it created hasn't come up with agreement on how to operate so the UK needs to set in place procedures or there'd be nothing there.
So you are advocating ignoring the rule of law? Interesting position.
What about a burglar doing the same thing? What is your address and we shall find out whether you are as understanding.
Edit: please note this is an analogy. The last thing I would want anyone doing is coming within 100 miles of @Philip_Thompson. For their own sanity, obvs.
I simply do not accept Boris breaking a treaty and this latest schism is wrong on every count
However, despite Scott and others posting non stop anti Brexit propaganda the one thing it will not do is stop Brexit or the end of transition on the 31st December
It is to be hoped sanity prevails and the one thing I do share with Scott is that it is time for Boris to go..
And for those who ask why we remain in the conservatives exactly the same questions needs to be asked as why so many stayed in labour as Corbyn shredded their brand
I will get a vote on the leadership in time and it will be for Rishi as things stand
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
While that is in one sense true - Parliament clearly has the power to override the treaty if it does so specifically - what it cannot do is unilaterally modify an international treaty which it has agreed to be bound by in order to set aside some of its provisions in this manner. By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
And to pretend otherwise is the purest sophistry.
Good. Get on with it.
Britain is a free country and needs to do what is in its interests - and the Treaty hasn't worked since the Joint Committee it created hasn't come up with agreement on how to operate so the UK needs to set in place procedures or there'd be nothing there.
When you write about Trump and the US election you promote measured, well considered arguments.
All that goes out of the window when you attempt to defend Johnson and his acolytes.
So May joins Hammond yesterday in attacking the government over a No Deal Brexit, seems most of the rebels against her Withdrawal Agreement are now leading the government and most of May's government are now the rebels whether on the backbenches or outside of Parliament https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1303303552551604224?s=20
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
While that is in one sense true - Parliament clearly has the power to override the treaty if it does so specifically - what it cannot do is unilaterally modify an international treaty which it has agreed to be bound by in order to set aside some of its provisions in this manner. By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
And to pretend otherwise is the purest sophistry.
Good. Get on with it.
Britain is a free country and needs to do what is in its interests - and the Treaty hasn't worked since the Joint Committee it created hasn't come up with agreement on how to operate so the UK needs to set in place procedures or there'd be nothing there.
So you are advocating ignoring the rule of law? Interesting position.
What about a burglar doing the same thing? What is your address and we shall find out whether you are as understanding.
I am not advocating ignoring the rule of law, I am advocating changing the law within Parliament. What part of that are you struggling with? Parliament has the power to change the law and if it does so, it is lawful.
As Barbossa says in Pirates of the Caribbean about the Code, "international law" "is more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
Those sounds you hear are the Russian and Chinese Embassies in London laughing their socks off.
Because those countries have never done just whatever they hell they please anyway before now?
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
We're much smaller than those countries/groups, English law (And the application of) is one of the big strengths of London in particular internationally for finance, contracts and law generally.
Size doesn't matter. Plenty of big, medium and small countries do whatever they please.
We're not smaller than Russia, our GDP is 173% of the size of Russia's.
Philip you are a troll. Of the old usenet/google groups type.
Because dear god you cannot be posting what you are posting with any semblance of seriousness. It is just an amusing exercise for you. And tbf we are falling for it so well done you.
For decades the Civil Service has been notorious for "gold plating" the EU rules. The rules need interpretation and that's the way its been done in this country.
I don't see why, within reason, the UK shouldn't be "interpreting" the Withdrawal Agreement in the way it wants to do so.
If the EU interprets the WA differently that's up to it. Much of the WA was deliberately vague so there is no single right interpretation for every issue.
God Almighty! There is an English Act - the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 - which sets out the government’s obligations, drafted by government lawyers, presented to Partierliament by this PM and enthusiastically voted for by Tory MPs.You want to keep persisting in this myth that this is just about interpreting some vague treaty but it isn’t. It’s about what this government has legislated into English law.
Feel free to insert here your usual spiel about government taking back control over its laws and Parliament being sovereign.
I am not a lawyer and know more about economics than the law, but in the field of economics just because one person says one thing does not make it so. Another person might reasonably believe something else - and people's beliefs on issues they are close to can make a difference.
My understanding was that lawyers were the same. That one lawyer could reasonably hold one view of what the law is - and that another lawyer could reasonably hold another view. Otherwise why do we need to bother with Courts and especially multiple tiers of appellant Courts etc? If every single lawyer is divine, infallible and operates with a hive mind then surely we can slim down the law to just one lawyer to settle every dispute? Or is the law perhaps complex and someone, even a well intentioned lawyer, might be wrong on an issue? Is that ever possible Cyclefree?
It is worth remembering for instance on the case of the Progation that Lord Doherty and the English High Court initially ruled that the issue was non-justiciable. Are you suggesting that they were corrupted, or was it perhaps a complex issue and they in good faith disagreed with what the Supreme Court eventually ruled?
Yes there has been an English Act and the Government should act within the law. But what the law is and how it will operate is a matter for interpretation. The FT itself says that the legal advice is split on this matter. Who is to say that Braverman is wrong on this and that Jonathan Jones is right? Are you saying there isn't a scintilla of doubt in your mind that it could be the other way around?
I answered this question in my header yesterday where I said that (a) the government could pass a new law specifically and expressly disallowing certain provisions in the Act; and (b) that this would set for the stage for some complicated litigation.
From what Brandon Lewis has been quoted as saying it sounds like the Government is indeed following your advice* and doing precisely this is it not? So it is doing something you have said it can do?
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
No. Because the current Act says that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with the Act and WA, the U.K. courts would have to disregard that subsequent statute. The only way to get round that is for Parliament to pass a law which is inconsistent with the previous law and which very expressly instructs the courts to disregard the previous obligations and follow the new law even though it is in breach of international law.
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
Isn't that exactly what they are proposing with the override though? That the override will explicitly in law take precedence over the WA?
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
While that is in one sense true - Parliament clearly has the power to override the treaty if it does so specifically - what it cannot do is unilaterally modify an international treaty which it has agreed to be bound by in order to set aside some of its provisions in this manner. By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
And to pretend otherwise is the purest sophistry.
Good. Get on with it.
Britain is a free country and needs to do what is in its interests - and the Treaty hasn't worked since the Joint Committee it created hasn't come up with agreement on how to operate so the UK needs to set in place procedures or there'd be nothing there.
When you write about Trump and the US election you promote measured, well considered arguments.
All that goes out of the window when you attempt to defend Johnson and his acolytes.
Those sounds you hear are the Russian and Chinese Embassies in London laughing their socks off.
Because those countries have never done just whatever they hell they please anyway before now?
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
We're much smaller than those countries/groups, English law (And the application of) is one of the big strengths of London in particular internationally for finance, contracts and law generally.
Size doesn't matter. Plenty of big, medium and small countries do whatever they please.
We're not smaller than Russia, our GDP is 173% of the size of Russia's.
Philip you are a troll. Of the old usenet/google groups type.
Because dear god you cannot be posting what you are posting with any semblance of seriousness. It is just an amusing exercise for you. And tbf we are falling for it so well done you.
I am 100% deadly serious.
The size of the countries does not matter. Parliament sets the rules.
Both are true. If you don't like the fact Parliament sets the rules then tough - that is democracy and it is what we live in. Parliament is supreme. If "international law" says one thing and Parliament says something else then Parliament is right.
International law only applies because Parliament deems it to.
Comments
That's a big thing to admit on behalf of the Government, but not a resigning matter for Lewis under the Ministerial Code.
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-53657174
* I know you're not actually advising them to do it, just saying they could.
https://twitter.com/carlheneghan/status/1303220734689501184
The UK has "particular reasons" here for acting in the way it is. In particular the joint committee the UK and EU created in the Withdrawal Agreement hasn't actually reached agreement in how some things will operate - and the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't create a fallback if the Joint Committee don't agree - so it makes sense for the UK to entirely within reason set a framework that will operate unless or until the Joint Committee does agree an alternative one.
Your forecast btw will win you £8.50 on our spread bet. Not too shabby.
1) It removes the insult's effectiveness if I like it (or at least do not object)
2) It reminds them of my political position and unbending pigheadedness
“Yes - this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”
“This” refers to the Bill which is going to be introduced.
It's required viewing – the guy is absolutely on top of these numbers. He is a seriously impressive figure.
That will shoot Johnson's fox.
I don't believe Trafalgar have polled Nevada lately, and indeed burned their fingers badly there by predicting a 3% GOP win in the Senate race - fully 8% off the 5% Democrat cake-walk.
If they did it would no doubt shift averages (I note Emerson have done Nevada, although they were even more red-faced in 2018, being a huge 12% off, albeit their last poll was nearly a month from the election).
I will add that we have not yet reached levels of Zimbabweness....
Here it is again, he is on from 7minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=213&v=4WdzMVekUBU&feature=emb_title
"Does the Government respect international law". Skewerings every which way on the follow ups.
Or have you now accepted that No Deal means No Deal, not a better deal
Now that is quite an extraordinary instruction to give, if you think about it. So to resolve the conflicting laws and determine what that instruction means and also determine whether or not as a matter of international law this could be done, the matter would necessarily have to be determined by the courts, including very probably, the ECJ, for the reasons spelt out in that thread I pointed out to you in my previous answer.
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.
In any event, Parliamentary privilege applies to actions and statements in course of legislative work.
So this would only apply if he'd been advised it was all completely lawful and his claim was some kind of 3D chess move.
I imagine that is why they are happy for Brandon Lewis to say what he has said, rather than to try and spin it. Because if they went with spin then the courts would need to take the WA as precedence, but having said what they're saying they can explicitly ensure the new Act takes precedence surely?
We have the makings of a new Political Urban Dictionary:-
- “I was driving 30 miles to test my eyesight.”
- “I am breaking the law in a very specific and limited way.”
- “It was all the fault of a mutant algorithm.
274 EC votes to Trumpton, and the win.
It's sickening, but it could yet happen.
So it does not really solve the legal problem. Nor does it really solve the political problem of trying to reach agreement on how the NI Protocol should work.
And it creates additional problems because it raises the question of whether the government can be trusted, which makes reaching any sort of viable agreement even harder than it might otherwise be.
I am convinced the stunts these chancers have so far pulled are the tip of the iceberg compared to what is to come.
By passing this legislation, they are effectively abrogating the entire treaty, whether or not the government still considers parts of it to be in force.
And to pretend otherwise is the purest sophistry.
I don’t see any way around that conclusion.
Britain is a free country and needs to do what is in its interests - and the Treaty hasn't worked since the Joint Committee it created hasn't come up with agreement on how to operate so the UK needs to set in place procedures or there'd be nothing there.
Because the USA has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
Because the EU itself has never done just whatever the hell it pleases anyway before now?
The UK is becoming a player on the global stage again. Good. We can operate by the same rules everyone else does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ojK9Q_ARE
You have a mortgage agreement with the bank and then you decide unilaterally to amend the agreement whereby you don't have to make the monthly payments any more.
We're not smaller than Russia, our GDP is 173% of the size of Russia's.
What cap size are you? And what design do you want - union jack or flag of St George?
What about a burglar doing the same thing? What is your address and we shall find out whether you are as understanding.
Edit: please note this is an analogy. The last thing I would want anyone doing is coming within 100 miles of @Philip_Thompson. For their own sanity, obvs.
However, despite Scott and others posting non stop anti Brexit propaganda the one thing it will not do is stop Brexit or the end of transition on the 31st December
It is to be hoped sanity prevails and the one thing I do share with Scott is that it is time for Boris to go..
And for those who ask why we remain in the conservatives exactly the same questions needs to be asked as why so many stayed in labour as Corbyn shredded their brand
I will get a vote on the leadership in time and it will be for Rishi as things stand
All that goes out of the window when you attempt to defend Johnson and his acolytes.
As Barbossa says in Pirates of the Caribbean about the Code, "international law" "is more what you call guidelines than actual rules".
Because dear god you cannot be posting what you are posting with any semblance of seriousness. It is just an amusing exercise for you. And tbf we are falling for it so well done you.
This has got to be one of the biggest own goals in recent political history
The size of the countries does not matter.
Parliament sets the rules.
Both are true. If you don't like the fact Parliament sets the rules then tough - that is democracy and it is what we live in. Parliament is supreme. If "international law" says one thing and Parliament says something else then Parliament is right.
International law only applies because Parliament deems it to.