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.
You may not care about the loss of Britain’s moral authority. But others do - we have high expectations of our country and are saddened to see it throw one of its historic strengths away for no good reason.
But ask yourself this: you may not care about this law and about whether the government can be trusted to abide by it. But if it cannot be trusted on this how can you trust it to abide by the laws you do care about?
Like the ones protecting you, your family, your property, your right to vote etc.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
You think Trump will hold Wisconsin and Michigan?
I disagree with HYFUD's reliance solely on a pollster that did well in 2016 but poorly in 2018. I've said before and I'll say again that, in a 'surprise' election the pollster which is an outlier for the winning party will look good in some respects... but consistency is king and they don't have it.
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
Largely agreed.
On the latest polling averages this month Biden leads by 5% in Arizona, 5% in Wisconsin, 4.2% in Pennsylvania, 4% in Nevada, 3.7% in Minnesota, 2.6% in Michigan, 2.3% in Ohio, 1.8% in Florida and 0.6% in North Carolina.
So it is possible Biden could win Wisconsin and Minnesota could be won by Trump but as they both have 10 EC votes each that makes no difference to my overall EC prediction.
I think Trump will carry PA - if he is carrying OH and MI. AZ is harder to read but I expect the Republicans just hang on.
Interesting snippet. Smith and Weston said their gun sales were up 140% yoy from May to July in an investor call and they are ramping up to max capacity.
OK so using the kind of desperate logic you sometimes use, this suggests Republicans have as good as given up because they know Biden and Democrats will win, and they are buying guns before restrictions are introduced.
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.
Russia sacrifices domestic prosperity for power projection and international influence (Not always benign), it's people would be better off if they had more normal relations with the outside world. Not sure it's a model to be particularly copied.
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.
Bizarre isn't it.
Ignore him, if you don’t respond then we don’t have to skip past his demented posts.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
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.
There we go. Just as I predicted. To the base this - ignoring the law - is Making Britain Great Again.
What cap size are you? And what design do you want - union jack or flag of St George?
Cross of St George please.
I don't want to ignore the law. I want to change the law. The law is whatever our elected Parliament says the law is. Parliament has the right to change any law.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
The breach of international law isn't actually the main point to focus on - the main point is the breach of trust with the EU. This is stark raving bonkers, even by the government's own priorities. We have been asking them for a flexible relationship, where they trust us on things like state aid, rather than tying us up in legally-binding specifics. And to be fair, we did have a smidgen of an argument there, given that historically it hasn't been the UK that has misused state aid.
All blown up now. The one 100% certain outcome of all this brouhaha is that the EU will be absolutely insistent on any agreement having watertight restrictions on what the UK can do, restrictions which don't require them to trust the UK as a whole, and Boris in particular, in anything.
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.
You may not care about the loss of Britain’s moral authority. But others do - we have high expectations of our country and are saddened to see it throw one of its historic strengths away for no good reason.
But ask yourself this: you may not care about this law and about whether the government can be trusted to abide by it. But if it cannot be trusted on this how can you trust it to abide by the laws you do care about?
Like the ones protecting you, your family, your property, your right to vote etc.
The answer is I don't. We need eternal vigilance, not trust.
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.
Bizarre isn't it.
Ignore him, if you don’t respond then we don’t have to skip past his demented posts.
PB Tories completely off the deep end now with Johnson, perhaps we should re-name this site US Politics where we'd have a much more rational and considered discussion?
To his credit @Big_G_NorthWales is the only sensible person posting from that POV at present
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.
You are absolutely right. International law only applies because Parliament deems it to. But do you see where that leads us, international treaty-wise?
And dear god I'm scared if you are serious about all this. It's one of your famous blind spots where the most transparently obvious, seemingly uncontentious point completely passes you by.
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.
Bizarre isn't it.
Ignore him, if you don’t respond then we don’t have to skip past his demented posts.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
The breach of international law isn't actually the main point to focus on - the main point is the breach of trust with the EU. This is stark raving bonkers, even by the government's own priorities. We have been asking them for a flexible relationship, where they trust us on things like state aid, rather than tying us up in legally-binding specifics. And to be fair, we did have a smidgen of an argument there, given that historically it hasn't been the UK that has misused state aid.
All blown up now. The one 100% certain outcome of all this brouhaha is that the EU will be absolutely insistent on any agreement having watertight restrictions on what the UK can do, restrictions which don't require them to trust the UK as a whole, and Boris in particular, in anything.
This is clearly setting up another judges vs Government episode but I can't see how it helps the Government. There is no election on the horizon and all it does it hurts the UK. Very odd - can somebody explain the upside, would any PB Tories like to comment?
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
When did Boris Johnson get voted in to break the law, aren't you the law and order party?
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.
There we go. Just as I predicted. To the base this - ignoring the law - is Making Britain Great Again.
What cap size are you? And what design do you want - union jack or flag of St George?
Cross of St George please.
I don't want to ignore the law. I want to change the law. The law is whatever our elected Parliament says the law is. Parliament has the right to change any law.
You are, in fact, saying you want to ignore international law. Whilst you are right domestic law can be made to take precedence over international law, it doesn't CHANGE international law.
Now it's possible to make an argument for doing that, but there is also a HUGE risk in that it's incredibly hard to make international agreements if you have a reputation for ripping them up whenever it's convenient to suit the Dear Leader and the Boy Cummings.
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".
Philip I'm going to have to roll out the old "you are a moron" response again.
Many apologies because I hate to do it but sometimes it must be done.
The UK signed an international treaty, under international law, with another international body (in this case the EU). There are two parties to the agreement and the treaty was enshrined under said international law.
The UK is now saying it will break international law. Does parliament have the power to change international law? If not then it is breaking the law, as accepted by Brandon Lewis.
And you can see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
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.
Bizarre isn't it.
Ignore him, if you don’t respond then we don’t have to skip past his demented posts.
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.
Bizarre isn't it.
Ignore him, if you don’t respond then we don’t have to skip past his demented posts.
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.
You are absolutely right. International law only applies because Parliament deems it to. But do you see where that leads us, international treaty-wise?
And dear god I'm scared if you are serious about all this. It's one of your famous blind spots where the most transparently obvious, seemingly uncontentious point completely passes you by.
Yes I'm OK with that. We will continue to honour our treaties with other countries when it suits us to do so and they will do the same. Just as always happens in reality, nothing new there.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
You think Trump will hold Wisconsin and Michigan?
I disagree with HYFUD's reliance solely on a pollster that did well in 2016 but poorly in 2018. I've said before and I'll say again that, in a 'surprise' election the pollster which is an outlier for the winning party will look good in some respects... but consistency is king and they don't have it.
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
Largely agreed.
On the latest polling averages this month Biden leads by 5% in Arizona, 5% in Wisconsin, 4.2% in Pennsylvania, 4% in Nevada, 3.7% in Minnesota, 2.6% in Michigan, 2.3% in Ohio, 1.8% in Florida and 0.6% in North Carolina.
So it is possible Biden could win Wisconsin and Minnesota could be won by Trump but as they both have 10 EC votes each that makes no difference to my overall EC prediction.
I think Trump will carry PA - if he is carrying OH and MI. AZ is harder to read but I expect the Republicans just hang on.
Interesting snippet. Smith and Weston said their gun sales were up 140% yoy from May to July in an investor call and they are ramping up to max capacity.
OK so using the kind of desperate logic you sometimes use, this suggests Republicans have as good as given up because they know Biden and Democrats will win, and they are buying guns before restrictions are introduced.
Err, no Kamski, calm now. The gun sales suggest that people are worried about crime so they are buying guns. A person who is worried enough about crime to buy a gun might be more receptive to a law and order message. 40% of gun purchases in May to July were made by first time buyers.
Also - the biggest leap in gun ownership demographic was Black people at +58%. Are they buying guns because they are scared of the Police or because of crime?
There is a worrying tendency to jump on any sort of reference point that goes against the Second Coming of the Messiah (i.e. Joe Biden) as though it is heresy.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
I did not vote to breach an international treaty
It is wrong on so many levels and Boris should resign and take Cummings with him
I still support Brexit but time to move to a single market
I would even be delighted to see TM lead a GNU as suggested by Willamglenn
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
When did Boris Johnson get voted in to break the law, aren't you the law and order party?
The law is whatever Parliament says is the law.
That is the strength of the United Kingdom/England. We have never been one for a codified constitution that is unchangeable. We elect MPs and they set the law. If we're not happy with the law, get the MPs to change the law.
That is the law and order I believe in. If Parliament changes the law then the law is changed. End of story.
Have I Got News For You @haveigotnews · ‘Brexit deal never made sense’ says man who negotiated it, signed it, prevented MPs from scrutinising it, campaigned for it and won a general election on the back of it being oven ready.
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.
There we go. Just as I predicted. To the base this - ignoring the law - is Making Britain Great Again.
What cap size are you? And what design do you want - union jack or flag of St George?
Cross of St George please.
I don't want to ignore the law. I want to change the law. The law is whatever our elected Parliament says the law is. Parliament has the right to change any law.
That approach is coherent, logical but has two massive holes.
The first is that the laws protect the losers from the winners, at least in part. A country where a winning party has five years to do whatever they damn well please, and if you don't like it you can vote against them in five years time would not be a good country to live in. Because (and this is the bit some cheerleaders refuse to believe), every government ends up in opposition eventually.
The second is that no one is purely an island. The minute we interact with others, we cede some of our sovereignty. We need mutually agreed ways of relating. We can suggest, we can step away if we aren't happy, we can even try using our power... but if we do that, we have to accept that others will do the same to us. And if we insist on making all the rules, the relationships won't last.
But the only way to achieve total sovereignty is to be totally isolated.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
I did not vote to breach an international treaty
It is wrong on so many levels and Boris should resign and take Cummings with him
I still support Brexit but time to move to a single market
I would even be delighted to see TM lead a GNU as suggested by Willamglenn
I would be happy for TM to lead a Conservative Government, having seen what came next.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
I did not vote to breach an international treaty
It is wrong on so many levels and Boris should resign and take Cummings with him
I still support Brexit but time to move to a single market
I would even be delighted to see TM lead a GNU as suggested by Willamglenn
Write to your MP and tell them your opinions. I can do the same with mine. If enough send in a letter to Mr Brady then we can have a ballot and see if the majority of Tory MPs agree, but I hope and expect that Johnson who won both the leadership election and General Election convincingly has support of his MPs in the path he is taking us.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
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.
You are absolutely right. International law only applies because Parliament deems it to. But do you see where that leads us, international treaty-wise?
And dear god I'm scared if you are serious about all this. It's one of your famous blind spots where the most transparently obvious, seemingly uncontentious point completely passes you by.
Yes I'm OK with that. We will continue to honour our treaties with other countries when it suits us to do so and they will do the same. Just as always happens in reality, nothing new there.
Utter cultist guff, Philip.
It is not business as usual for countries to rip up mildly inconvenient agreements made a few months ago. Unless the country is in an unbelievably strong position economically or militarily, which we ain't, they find themselves in banana republic territory, unable to make meaningful agreements with trading and other partners.
And you will be cut adrift by your cult leader on this one - U-turn incoming.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
The problem is that Boris fought the general election on the basis of a deal that he now wants to break. He was given precisely the authority that he asked for, and signed a legally-binding deal. He doesn't even have the "no Parliament can bind its successor" argument here, because it was the same Parliament and the same PM that authorised the deal in the first place.
The deal wasn't oven-ready, it was under-cooked, and now they've given themselves the sh*ts. Claiming that you have the perfect right to sh*t yourself is hardly equivalent to making it sound like a good idea.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
I love the rewriting of history. Leaving aside that he fought the referendum on the platform of being in a tariff-free, friction free zone from Ireland to the Ukraine, and that the leadership election was fought on a platform of having our cake and eating it, the general election fought on the basis of an 'oven-ready deal'. How's that cooking?
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.
Yes I've noticed that. It's very odd.
I think Philip likes to put a clear consistent strongly argued case. It is a very satisfying thing to do, even when it is consistently wrong.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
We've left the EU and Corbyn is gone. Job done. And the price for that lot was some form filling for goods going between NI and the rest of the UK.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
I did not vote to breach an international treaty
It is wrong on so many levels and Boris should resign and take Cummings with him
I still support Brexit but time to move to a single market
I would even be delighted to see TM lead a GNU as suggested by Willamglenn
Write to your MP and tell them your opinions. I can do the same with mine. If enough send in a letter to Mr Brady then we can have a ballot and see if the majority of Tory MPs agree, but I hope and expect that Johnson who won both the leadership election and General Election convincingly has support of his MPs in the path he is taking us.
I expect the letter writing is happening in earnest now
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
If Parliament changes the law, it has been done within the law. Parliament is sovereign.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
When did Boris Johnson get voted in to break the law, aren't you the law and order party?
The law is whatever Parliament says is the law.
That is the strength of the United Kingdom/England. We have never been one for a codified constitution that is unchangeable. We elect MPs and they set the law. If we're not happy with the law, get the MPs to change the law.
That is the law and order I believe in. If Parliament changes the law then the law is changed. End of story.
MPs cannot change international law, only domestic law. As long as we remain signatories to the various treaties and conventions including the Vienna Convention on Treaties then we are bound by their conditions.
Yes of course we can withdraw from all these international treaties but what we cannot do is unilaterally change them. Boris is claiming we can and he is a lying piece of shit.
What we do know is their sample and question in 2016 was spot on in getting the actual result in Michigan.
They did not use the how do you think your neighbours will vote to determine their voting intention figures, they were listed separately but if they used them to extract their spot on Michigan sample for voting intention of 2016 then Trafalgar remain the best pollster for Michigan in 2020 too and their latest poll putting Trump ahead in Michigan against Biden would be accurate.
It should also be noted that in 2016 Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania too, their latest poll has Biden ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania so you cannot say they are just rehasing their 2016 results.
Yes they do. The literally state at the end of the poll results document that they use the Neighbor question to adjust their headline figure.
"the final published ballot test is a combination of survey respondents to both a standard ballot test and a ballot test guaging where respondent's neighbors stand."
They do not publish the result of the standard ballot test question alone.
Which they also did in 2016 to get their highly accurate final sample in Michigan but again they did not use it solely as their standard voting intention question when they were the only pollster to have Michigan and Pennsylvania being won by Trump. They used a standard ballot test like other pollsters and then adjusted by the neighbour question to get their final result that ensured they were the only accurate pollster in Michigan in 2016.
Thanks for the confirmation and I will stick with Trafalgar Group when deciding who will win the MidWest and rustbelt swing states
So what you are saying is you were wrong on an unarguable matter of fact?
No, I correctly pointed out Trafalgar Group's entire voting intention question was not based on how your neighbour will vote, it merely adjusted their standard answers to the question.
I am sticking to what they say and sticking to my prediction now Trump will win the EC 274 to 264 with Biden holding the Hillary states and picking up Arizona, Nebraska 02 and Pennsylvania where he was born and Trump holding all the other states he won in 2016 (though I think Biden will still win the popular vote, probably by even more than Hillary did).
If you are certain Biden will win a landslide that is up to you, we will see who is right in November
You think Trump will hold Wisconsin and Michigan?
I disagree with HYFUD's reliance solely on a pollster that did well in 2016 but poorly in 2018. I've said before and I'll say again that, in a 'surprise' election the pollster which is an outlier for the winning party will look good in some respects... but consistency is king and they don't have it.
However, the argument that Trump could hold Michigan and Wisconsin while losing other states is sound.
These are predominantly white non-hispanic states (76% and 83%) with historic heavy industry, where Trump's US-first message resonates strongly. Pennsylvania is similar but Biden may benefit from local ties, while Arizona is only 58% white non-hispanic, and has been trending Democrat in recent statewide elections (GOP also look in trouble in the Senate race which may help Biden a little).
Although I'd suggest Florida and North Carolina are also in play as not "core" Trump (albeit neither was that good for Democrats in 2018).
Largely agreed.
On the latest polling averages this month Biden leads by 5% in Arizona, 5% in Wisconsin, 4.2% in Pennsylvania, 4% in Nevada, 3.7% in Minnesota, 2.6% in Michigan, 2.3% in Ohio, 1.8% in Florida and 0.6% in North Carolina.
So it is possible Biden could win Wisconsin and Minnesota could be won by Trump but as they both have 10 EC votes each that makes no difference to my overall EC prediction.
I think Trump will carry PA - if he is carrying OH and MI. AZ is harder to read but I expect the Republicans just hang on.
Interesting snippet. Smith and Weston said their gun sales were up 140% yoy from May to July in an investor call and they are ramping up to max capacity.
OK so using the kind of desperate logic you sometimes use, this suggests Republicans have as good as given up because they know Biden and Democrats will win, and they are buying guns before restrictions are introduced.
Err, no Kamski, calm now. The gun sales suggest that people are worried about crime so they are buying guns. A person who is worried enough about crime to buy a gun might be more receptive to a law and order message. 40% of gun purchases in May to July were made by first time buyers.
Also - the biggest leap in gun ownership demographic was Black people at +58%. Are they buying guns because they are scared of the Police or because of crime?
There is a worrying tendency to jump on any sort of reference point that goes against the Second Coming of the Messiah (i.e. Joe Biden) as though it is heresy.
Yeah, precisely nobody on here lionises Biden in the way you describe, don't be a silly old pillock.
They mostly just prefer him to the odious racist moron you support.
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.
You are absolutely right. International law only applies because Parliament deems it to. But do you see where that leads us, international treaty-wise?
And dear god I'm scared if you are serious about all this. It's one of your famous blind spots where the most transparently obvious, seemingly uncontentious point completely passes you by.
Yes I'm OK with that. We will continue to honour our treaties with other countries when it suits us to do so and they will do the same. Just as always happens in reality, nothing new there.
We have never broken an international treaty in the modern era. Our whole position in the world as an international power and a destination for investment relies upon the fact that we keep our word and abide by the laws we have signed up to. Honouring treaties only when you want to is what pariah states do.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
If Parliament changes the law, it has been done within the law. Parliament is sovereign.
Only within the British Isles. The rest of the world can and will consider us untrustworthy and unfit to make deals with.
I don't think I'd comment on this one if I was a Tory MP right now, tweet about some fantastic local businesses instead. You're either heading through the division lobby to support it or there's a U-turn incoming.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
If Parliament changes the law, it has been done within the law. Parliament is sovereign.
Do you genuinely not understand that you can't unilaterally change an international obligation?
You can change domestic law such that the international obligation cannot be enforced in domestic courts.
But it does not alter one tiny bit the fact that you are in breach of international law, and all future international agreements must come with a "serious risk of breach" asterix next to the UK's name.
Presumably it doesn't matter, countries can do what they want now, ignore law, etc
A very stark but important point. Actions have reactions. We break a rule of international law, why shouldn't Iran?
People keep throwing around this line "oh what if others break international law".
International law is and always has been a polite fiction. Countries abide by it when it suits them and disapply it when it doesn't. C'est la vie.
I don't think there is a single country in the world, as a result of Britain's actions, that would start breaking "international law" that didn't already do so.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
If Parliament changes the law, it has been done within the law. Parliament is sovereign.
Only within the British Isles. The rest of the world can and will consider us untrustworthy and unfit to make deals with.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
If Parliament changes the law, it has been done within the law. Parliament is sovereign.
Provided, of course, that Parliament has been elected within the law and within the accepted codes of conduct.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
If you could say that the people voted for any one thing, then that one thing would be Johnson's "oven-ready" deal.
That is explicitly not a mandate to unilaterally rip up that deal.
Presumably it doesn't matter, countries can do what they want now, ignore law, etc
A very stark but important point. Actions have reactions. We break a rule of international law, why shouldn't Iran?
People keep throwing around this line "oh what if others break international law".
International law is and always has been a polite fiction. Countries abide by it when it suits them and disapply it when it doesn't. C'est la vie.
I don't think there is a single country in the world, as a result of Britain's actions, that would start breaking "international law" that didn't already do so.
That is not the point, and you know it. When Britain , one of the world's policemen, flagrantly breaches an international code, it is a defence for any tinpot dictator the world over to use as a defence.
The breach of international law isn't actually the main point to focus on - the main point is the breach of trust with the EU. This is stark raving bonkers, even by the government's own priorities. We have been asking them for a flexible relationship, where they trust us on things like state aid, rather than tying us up in legally-binding specifics. And to be fair, we did have a smidgen of an argument there, given that historically it hasn't been the UK that has misused state aid.
All blown up now. The one 100% certain outcome of all this brouhaha is that the EU will be absolutely insistent on any agreement having watertight restrictions on what the UK can do, restrictions which don't require them to trust the UK as a whole, and Boris in particular, in anything.
This is clearly setting up another judges vs Government episode but I can't see how it helps the Government. There is no election on the horizon and all it does it hurts the UK. Very odd - can somebody explain the upside, would any PB Tories like to comment?
And the Government will lose - at least in the short term. The courts will rule that any new legislation is in breach of our legal Treaty obligations. That may not stop the Government doing it but it will mean that the Treaty is not amended, just dead. In its entirety.
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
At this moment in time TM is the Statesperson and how so many on all sides must regret not backing her deal
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
Boris fought a referendum, a leadership election and a general election on taking back control and won all of them.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
But things have to be within the law. We cannot damage our reputation overseas just because Boris wants to do something. If we do this I suspect future trade deals will not be in as good as faith as we would want. We are at a disadvantage anyway with us obviously being desperate for trade deals.
If Parliament changes the law, it has been done within the law. Parliament is sovereign.
I'm not sure you understand the point of international treaties, or you do and you're just spinning to the end for the Tories.
Unfortunately, I will have to consider ignoring you again until you're back in the real world
Presumably it doesn't matter, countries can do what they want now, ignore law, etc
A very stark but important point. Actions have reactions. We break a rule of international law, why shouldn't Iran?
People keep throwing around this line "oh what if others break international law".
International law is and always has been a polite fiction. Countries abide by it when it suits them and disapply it when it doesn't. C'est la vie.
I don't think there is a single country in the world, as a result of Britain's actions, that would start breaking "international law" that didn't already do so.
Firstly, it is utter rubbish that non-pariah states breach international law casually when it suits them.
Secondly, it plainly does provide cover for others to breach obligations to us if we casually breach our own obligations.
Thirdly, it means we are significantly less likely to be able to make favourable international deals in the future.
All a rather pathetic bit of the Cult of Johnson from you today... and he'll shaft you as he so often does to his ardent fans by U-turning imminently.
Amazing how Dom and Boris have got themselves into such a pickle over Brexit. That was supposed to be their strong suit - Boris providing the charm and persuasion, Dom the data-crunching backroom genius. Bit like Eden with Suez and Brown with the financial crash I guess.
Countries generally follow 'international law' for the same reason they pay bondholders who hold their debt. You could stop the payments, but it's trickier, and more expensive to raise revenue next time round. Good faith with the EU trumps non form filling in the Irish sea.
The breach of international law isn't actually the main point to focus on - the main point is the breach of trust with the EU. This is stark raving bonkers, even by the government's own priorities. We have been asking them for a flexible relationship, where they trust us on things like state aid, rather than tying us up in legally-binding specifics. And to be fair, we did have a smidgen of an argument there, given that historically it hasn't been the UK that has misused state aid.
All blown up now. The one 100% certain outcome of all this brouhaha is that the EU will be absolutely insistent on any agreement having watertight restrictions on what the UK can do, restrictions which don't require them to trust the UK as a whole, and Boris in particular, in anything.
This is clearly setting up another judges vs Government episode but I can't see how it helps the Government. There is no election on the horizon and all it does it hurts the UK. Very odd - can somebody explain the upside, would any PB Tories like to comment?
Not a PB Tory, but the obvious explanation is that this is all smoke and mirrors so that when Johnson makes the big compromise in October he will have the Hard Brexit bonafides to bring the Brexit Press and ERG with him.
I think it does real damage to respect for law and our institutions in the meantime, and it might not even have the virtue of leading to a compromise either. The EU seem weary of the performance and the ERG recognise this as the endgame they were willing to be patient for with the Withdrawal Agreement.
Brexit: The trillion-dollar state aid gamble "Free of the EU's shackles, the UK government could foster home-grown technology giants." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54069959
Presumably it doesn't matter, countries can do what they want now, ignore law, etc
A very stark but important point. Actions have reactions. We break a rule of international law, why shouldn't Iran?
People keep throwing around this line "oh what if others break international law".
International law is and always has been a polite fiction. Countries abide by it when it suits them and disapply it when it doesn't. C'est la vie.
I don't think there is a single country in the world, as a result of Britain's actions, that would start breaking "international law" that didn't already do so.
Firstly, it is utter rubbish that non-pariah states breach international law casually when it suits them.
Secondly, it plainly does provide cover for others to breach obligations to us if we casually breach our own obligations.
Thirdly, it means we are significantly less likely to be able to make favourable international deals in the future.
All a rather pathetic bit of the Cult of Johnson from you today... and he'll shaft you as he so often does to his ardent fans by U-turning imminently.
Philip reminds me of the 12th guy in 12 Angry men. Alone and holding out to the bitter end.
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.
You are absolutely right. International law only applies because Parliament deems it to. But do you see where that leads us, international treaty-wise?
And dear god I'm scared if you are serious about all this. It's one of your famous blind spots where the most transparently obvious, seemingly uncontentious point completely passes you by.
Yes I'm OK with that. We will continue to honour our treaties with other countries when it suits us to do so and they will do the same. Just as always happens in reality, nothing new there.
That's not true, the whole point of treaties is that it binds countries to act by them even when it doesn't suit them. The only countries that do as you suggest are the likes of Russia, India, China etc... It's not a group we should be thinking of joining. International treaties are binding and need two party consent to change. That we are seeking to override one with a domestic instrument is turning the UK into a pariah state, we will sign no trade deals and I can tell you now it is threatening the status of the City as the premier place to raise capital. One of the major, major advantages of the City is that the UK respects rule of law and arbitration processes. If we become a country that breaks the law when it suits us investors will take fright and money markets will move to a country that does like Switzerland.
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.
There we go. Just as I predicted. To the base this - ignoring the law - is Making Britain Great Again.
What cap size are you? And what design do you want - union jack or flag of St George?
Cross of St George please.
I don't want to ignore the law. I want to change the law. The law is whatever our elected Parliament says the law is. Parliament has the right to change any law.
Brexit: The trillion-dollar state aid gamble "Free of the EU's shackles, the UK government could foster home-grown technology giants." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54069959
Inmos anyone?
The story of inmos is fascinating & one very few these days people excitedly by this "new" tech of multi-proessing & computer on a chip are aware of.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Brexit: The trillion-dollar state aid gamble "Free of the EU's shackles, the UK government could foster home-grown technology giants." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54069959
Inmos anyone?
The story of inmos is fascinating & one very few these days people excitedly by this "new" tech of multi-proessing & computer on a chip are aware of.
My memories are hazy, didn't they produce a transputer, and the programming language was called something like perihelion.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
This is right.
The Ignorami will love "Boris breaks the law and stuffs Brussels". They're not called the Ignorami for nothing.
But they will NOT like "Boris doesn't know his arse from his elbow".
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
We rarely agree Richard but on this we do.
I think you will find we agree on a great many things - at least in terms of basic principles. It is just the methods we disagree on.
Brexit: The trillion-dollar state aid gamble "Free of the EU's shackles, the UK government could foster home-grown technology giants." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54069959
Inmos anyone?
The story of inmos is fascinating & one very few these days people excitedly by this "new" tech of multi-proessing & computer on a chip are aware of.
My memories are hazy, didn't they produce a transputer, and the programming language was called something like perihelion.
Where Philip is right, though, is that nobody cares about international law. The argument that Boris hasn't a clue what he's doing is much more relevant. Having supported then opposed Theresa May's deal, he's now supporting then opposing his own bloody deal! If this breaks a law, it's the law his own government passed less than a year ago when they agreed the WA.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
But Philip is not even right there. The argument is not concerning what you or I or the an in the street thinks about International Law. It is about what the countries we want to make deals and treaties with think about it. Up until now much of what goes on in a negotiation for a trade deal or a new agreement is based on the principle that certain important things can go unsaid. The basic idea that both parties will stick to the deal being one of the most important. Going forward that is gone (if Boris persists with this idiocy). So to compensate all those countries which we want to do deals with will want much more stringent conditions and the costs will be far higher for us.
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
We rarely agree Richard but on this we do.
I think you will find we agree on a great many things - at least in terms of basic principles. It is just the methods we disagree on.
I am sure more common ground will be found soon
Do you agree that we must rise up and defeat grapes on pizza?
Comments
It's odd, I could have sworn they went down on XR protestors for the same thing
But ask yourself this: you may not care about this law and about whether the government can be trusted to abide by it. But if it cannot be trusted on this how can you trust it to abide by the laws you do care about?
Like the ones protecting you, your family, your property, your right to vote etc.
I will say this now, Boris should resign over this and take Cummings with him
Then we need to agree to stay in the single market
I don't want to ignore the law. I want to change the law. The law is whatever our elected Parliament says the law is. Parliament has the right to change any law.
All blown up now. The one 100% certain outcome of all this brouhaha is that the EU will be absolutely insistent on any agreement having watertight restrictions on what the UK can do, restrictions which don't require them to trust the UK as a whole, and Boris in particular, in anything.
To his credit @Big_G_NorthWales is the only sensible person posting from that POV at present
And dear god I'm scared if you are serious about all this. It's one of your famous blind spots where the most transparently obvious, seemingly uncontentious point completely passes you by.
We need to get on with Boris's agenda, that is what the people have voted for.
So how long until UK Gov U-turns and considers the matter closed? Minutes? Hours?
Now it's possible to make an argument for doing that, but there is also a HUGE risk in that it's incredibly hard to make international agreements if you have a reputation for ripping them up whenever it's convenient to suit the Dear Leader and the Boy Cummings.
Many apologies because I hate to do it but sometimes it must be done.
The UK signed an international treaty, under international law, with another international body (in this case the EU). There are two parties to the agreement and the treaty was enshrined under said international law.
The UK is now saying it will break international law. Does parliament have the power to change international law? If not then it is breaking the law, as accepted by Brandon Lewis.
And you can see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Gah! Work calls!!
Presumably it doesn't matter, countries can do what they want now, ignore law, etc
Also - the biggest leap in gun ownership demographic was Black people at +58%. Are they buying guns because they are scared of the Police or because of crime?
There is a worrying tendency to jump on any sort of reference point that goes against the Second Coming of the Messiah (i.e. Joe Biden) as though it is heresy.
It is wrong on so many levels and Boris should resign and take Cummings with him
I still support Brexit but time to move to a single market
I would even be delighted to see TM lead a GNU as suggested by Willamglenn
That is the strength of the United Kingdom/England. We have never been one for a codified constitution that is unchangeable. We elect MPs and they set the law. If we're not happy with the law, get the MPs to change the law.
That is the law and order I believe in. If Parliament changes the law then the law is changed. End of story.
@haveigotnews
·
‘Brexit deal never made sense’ says man who negotiated it, signed it, prevented MPs from scrutinising it, campaigned for it and won a general election on the back of it being oven ready.
The first is that the laws protect the losers from the winners, at least in part. A country where a winning party has five years to do whatever they damn well please, and if you don't like it you can vote against them in five years time would not be a good country to live in. Because (and this is the bit some cheerleaders refuse to believe), every government ends up in opposition eventually.
The second is that no one is purely an island. The minute we interact with others, we cede some of our sovereignty. We need mutually agreed ways of relating. We can suggest, we can step away if we aren't happy, we can even try using our power... but if we do that, we have to accept that others will do the same to us. And if we insist on making all the rules, the relationships won't last.
But the only way to achieve total sovereignty is to be totally isolated.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1303235893969465344
It is not business as usual for countries to rip up mildly inconvenient agreements made a few months ago. Unless the country is in an unbelievably strong position economically or militarily, which we ain't, they find themselves in banana republic territory, unable to make meaningful agreements with trading and other partners.
And you will be cut adrift by your cult leader on this one - U-turn incoming.
The deal wasn't oven-ready, it was under-cooked, and now they've given themselves the sh*ts. Claiming that you have the perfect right to sh*t yourself is hardly equivalent to making it sound like a good idea.
I think Philip likes to put a clear consistent strongly argued case. It is a very satisfying thing to do, even when it is consistently wrong.
And the price for that lot was some form filling for goods going between NI and the rest of the UK.
And as for my mp he is a personal friend
Yes of course we can withdraw from all these international treaties but what we cannot do is unilaterally change them. Boris is claiming we can and he is a lying piece of shit.
They mostly just prefer him to the odious racist moron you support.
You can change domestic law such that the international obligation cannot be enforced in domestic courts.
But it does not alter one tiny bit the fact that you are in breach of international law, and all future international agreements must come with a "serious risk of breach" asterix next to the UK's name.
International law is and always has been a polite fiction. Countries abide by it when it suits them and disapply it when it doesn't. C'est la vie.
I don't think there is a single country in the world, as a result of Britain's actions, that would start breaking "international law" that didn't already do so.
If you're attacking the government for breaking international law, you're going to get the "well, whose side are you on anyway?" treatment. That you are *right* to be concerned about breaking international law is hardly the point, but it's an argument that lets Boris pose as Brexitman, Union Jack underpants on the outside, sticking two fingers up to foreign lawyers. The total lack of any clue as to what he's doing or what's going to happen next is the line to take. He could just about get away with it when he was merely the guy who was Foreign Secretary during May's negotiations, but he's now attacking his own policy passed by his own 80-seat Commons majority.
That is explicitly not a mandate to unilaterally rip up that deal.
Unfortunately, I will have to consider ignoring you again until you're back in the real world
Permitting the number of people resident in a house + say 4 extras from one other household to meet in that house would seem a more sensible solution.
Secondly, it plainly does provide cover for others to breach obligations to us if we casually breach our own obligations.
Thirdly, it means we are significantly less likely to be able to make favourable international deals in the future.
All a rather pathetic bit of the Cult of Johnson from you today... and he'll shaft you as he so often does to his ardent fans by U-turning imminently.
Good faith with the EU trumps non form filling in the Irish sea.
I think it does real damage to respect for law and our institutions in the meantime, and it might not even have the virtue of leading to a compromise either. The EU seem weary of the performance and the ERG recognise this as the endgame they were willing to be patient for with the Withdrawal Agreement.
"Free of the EU's shackles, the UK government could foster home-grown technology giants."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54069959
Inmos anyone?
https://youtu.be/0jxVnlRdelU?t=2
"I ❤ Boris - MEGA"
A public call for elected Democrats to be shot dead, accompanied by applause.
https://twitter.com/KohzKah/status/1303064360613371904
Good will and a good reputation matter. Boris is destroying that.
The Ignorami will love "Boris breaks the law and stuffs Brussels". They're not called the Ignorami for nothing.
But they will NOT like "Boris doesn't know his arse from his elbow".
Replace Boris Johnson with Jeremy Corbyn
Do you agree that we must rise up and defeat grapes on pizza?