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.
The transputer was what the founders "invented", but never really perfected & their core business was memory chips (which i believe at the time they were the majority of the market).
On top of the tech, there is all the politics shenanigans, initially backed by Labour government, despite Tony Benn doing everything to stop it, then Thatcher got elected & eventually privatised and sold off.
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?
We already made a small step in that direction with the purchase of the defunct satellite company.
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 will continue to honour our treaties with other countries when it suits us to do..
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?
Oh god! I hadn't even considered that horror. Now you have ruined my day.
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.
Yes, that was the idea. Ended up making memory chips until undercut. Cost the governemnt a bit. "In total, Inmos had received £211 million from the government, but did not become profitable.
In April 1989, Inmos was sold to SGS-Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). Around the same time, work was started on an enhanced transputer, the T9000. This encountered various technical problems and delays, and was eventually abandoned, signalling the end of the development of the transputer as a parallel processing platform. However, transputer derivatives such as the ST20 were later incorporated into chipsets for embedded applications such as set-top boxes. In December 1994, Inmos was fully assimilated into STMicroelectronics, and the usage of the Inmos brand name was discontinued.
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?
Oh god! I hadn't even considered that horror. Now you have ruined my day.
Keir has - wisely - not stepped into this debate just yet
It saddens me to see you say this. I can see why it's true - if Keir intervenes it risks becoming just another party political and Remain vs Leave bunfight, which makes life a lot easier for Johnson - but as Leader of the Opposition Keir needs to find a way to lead debates like this.
Ultimately it was a mistake that he didn't find a way to do so with Cummings, and it will be a mistake now. Somehow he has to demonstrate the leadership that Johnson isn't showing by intervening on issues like this in a non-partisan way.
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.
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.
Keir has - wisely - not stepped into this debate just yet
It saddens to see you say this. I can see why it's true - if Keir intervenes it risks becoming just another party political and Remain vs Leave bunfight, which makes life a lot easier for Johnson - but as Leader of the Opposition Keir needs to find a way to lead debates like this.
Ultimately it was a mistake that he didn't find a way to do so with Cummings, and it will be a mistake now. Somehow he has to demonstrate the leadership that Johnson isn't showing by intervening on issues like this in a non-partisan way.
I think ultimately we tried intervening for five years and it got us nowhere. More tactful opposition is needed.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
We're not going to end up with better Government and a better civil service.
We'll end up with lickspittle toadying Government, and an even worse civil service, which will further reinforce Cummings views on internal obstruction, conspiracy and incompetence and ever escalate it in a spiral effect via the magnificent phenomena of confirmation bias.
This will get worse and worse until they're turfed out.
I remember you asking me (sometime after the Brexit vote) what it would take for me to vote Conservative again.
Well.... definitely not this lot.
Why would you ever want to do that?
Do you not see that where we are is the result of Tory (and Tory-driven) decisions over the last 40 years, and even longer?
This lot are not outliers, merely a logical next step.
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.
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.
Blimey, cheery on here today.
Anyway, I'm not a Biden supporter
(and if you think Biden is a fighter against racism, look at who he used to hang out with in Congress and describe as his friends)
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?
Oh god! I hadn't even considered that horror. Now you have ruined my day.
Presumably your day can be salvaged by holding a robust debate with Horse over how to defeat the grapes?
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?
Haven't we already broken the law with respect to Iran by trousering the Shah's money and not giving them the tanks they paid for? (Not to let them off the hook for their disgusting behaviour in this matter, obvs).
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Repealing the Act wouldn't be devious or cunning enough for Cummings
Keir has - wisely - not stepped into this debate just yet
It saddens me to see you say this. I can see why it's true - if Keir intervenes it risks becoming just another party political and Remain vs Leave bunfight, which makes life a lot easier for Johnson - but as Leader of the Opposition Keir needs to find a way to lead debates like this.
Ultimately it was a mistake that he didn't find a way to do so with Cummings, and it will be a mistake now. Somehow he has to demonstrate the leadership that Johnson isn't showing by intervening on issues like this in a non-partisan way.
When you enemy is making a fool of themselves, why provide them with a means of unifying against a common enemy - just leave them to it.
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?
I've given this further consideration. I think as long as you use blue Stilton on the pizza, then grapes are OK.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed 100%. It is, in the Talleyrandian manner, a blunder.
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.
Blimey, cheery on here today.
Anyway, I'm not a Biden supporter
(and if you think Biden is a fighter against racism, look at who he used to hang out with in Congress and describe as his friends)
Never thought you were a Biden supporter, rather the opposite.
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?
Haven't we already broken the law with respect to Iran by trousering the Shah's money and not giving them the tanks they paid for? (Not to let them off the hook for their disgusting behaviour in this matter, obvs).
That wasn't why I made the point. Mrs Ratcliffe being held hostage for Iranian money is a different matter.
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's too many words for the cap. How about -
"I ❤ Boris - MEGA"
MEGA doesn't work because England already is Great. Something the orange fool never understood about his own country across the Atlantic. So we could go with Keep England Great as a better one, but then the greatness isn't really threatened. How about saying that Parliament's Independence is Non Transferrable? Or we can look forward to Brexit England's Exciting Renaissance.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
I think the biggest issue it creates is trust. The UK has knowingly signed a treaty it thinks is rubbish and is now unilaterally changing it because it was rubbish. As you say, it was maybe a better idea to not to sign it in the first place and just use repeal the ECA.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Wasn't that last what nutter-in-chief Bill Cash used to witter on about whenever he got into the media?
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.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
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.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
It seems an apt moment to repeat one of my favourite film exchanges.
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
1. Others break International laws, so why can't the UK. BUT 2. The UK breaking international laws will in no way encourage others.
It would appear Philip Thompson's UK is very easily influenced but entirely uninfluential
Your logic is like the logic of someone saying you shouldn't have sex education classes because it will just encourage teenagers to have sex. The issue is they were going to do that anyway.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
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.
Blimey, cheery on here today.
Anyway, I'm not a Biden supporter
(and if you think Biden is a fighter against racism, look at who he used to hang out with in Congress and describe as his friends)
To have a president who merely does not fight racism would be a big step in the right direction from where we are.
A terrible thing to say and even more terrible to know it's true. Unprecedented in modern times really.
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.
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.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
I think the biggest issue it creates is trust. The UK has knowingly signed a treaty it thinks is rubbish and is now unilaterally changing it because it was rubbish. As you say, it was maybe a better idea to not to sign it in the first place and just use repeal the ECA.
I don't think its an issue.
You say that about "rubbish" as if it is a shock. The UK got us to sign the Withdrawal Agreement under duress, they knew that and deliberately separated the trade talks from the Withdrawal Agreement talks and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. The whole thing was exceptional circumstances, under duress and yes to use a word bits of it might be "rubbish".
If the EU want to play hardball in the future relationship negotiations then so should we and if that means reopening old battles they thought they had cleverly won under duress then so be it.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
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.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Keep up, its a terrible deal signed under duress, not oven ready anymore.
If only there was a law and order candidate to condemn this sort of thing.
My sense is disorder plays for Biden. Because it's probable there would be less of it with Trump gone. After his goons have played up for a while about the "fix", I mean.
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's too many words for the cap. How about -
"I ❤ Boris - MEGA"
MEGA doesn't work because England already is Great. Something the orange fool never understood about his own country across the Atlantic. So we could go with Keep England Great as a better one, but then the greatness isn't really threatened. How about saying that Parliament's Independence is Non Transferrable? Or we can look forward to Brexit England's Exciting Renaissance.
We're not going to end up with better Government and a better civil service.
We'll end up with lickspittle toadying Government, and an even worse civil service, which will further reinforce Cummings views on internal obstruction, conspiracy and incompetence and ever escalate it in a spiral effect via the magnificent phenomena of confirmation bias.
This will get worse and worse until they're turfed out.
I remember you asking me (sometime after the Brexit vote) what it would take for me to vote Conservative again.
Well.... definitely not this lot.
Why would you ever want to do that?
Do you not see that where we are is the result of Tory (and Tory-driven) decisions over the last 40 years, and even longer?
This lot are not outliers, merely a logical next step.
As I get older, I find myself becoming more right wing and reactionary but I have never, ever been so distant from the Conservative Party.
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.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
We're not going to end up with better Government and a better civil service.
We'll end up with lickspittle toadying Government, and an even worse civil service, which will further reinforce Cummings views on internal obstruction, conspiracy and incompetence and ever escalate it in a spiral effect via the magnificent phenomena of confirmation bias.
This will get worse and worse until they're turfed out.
I remember you asking me (sometime after the Brexit vote) what it would take for me to vote Conservative again.
Well.... definitely not this lot.
Why would you ever want to do that?
Do you not see that where we are is the result of Tory (and Tory-driven) decisions over the last 40 years, and even longer?
This lot are not outliers, merely a logical next step.
As I get older, I find myself becoming more right wing and reactionary but I have never, ever been so distant from the Conservative Party.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
So why didn’t he do just that with his 80 seat majority?
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
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's too many words for the cap. How about -
"I ❤ Boris - MEGA"
MEGA doesn't work because England already is Great. Something the orange fool never understood about his own country across the Atlantic. So we could go with Keep England Great as a better one, but then the greatness isn't really threatened. How about saying that Parliament's Independence is Non Transferrable? Or we can look forward to Brexit England's Exciting Renaissance.
Very good. But only if you're buying.
The way things are going, this rabble of a government will soon be fighting just to keep Britain, never mind its greatness
Cutting taxes doesn't help the rich out. The rich are always fine whatever, it is those struggling to cope that are best served by being able to keep more of their own money and having more opportunities through a better economy.
Ha. You do not understand the Tory party.
They act entirely on the behalf of the rentier ruling class.
The only policy is staying in power permanently.
Government money is used to keep the rent-yielding structures in place, and to be siphoned to fellow Tories who can't give up the pretence of a day job.
Just occasionally a scrap will be tossed off the top table to prevent revolution.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
So why didn’t he do just that with his 80 seat majority?
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
We're not going to end up with better Government and a better civil service.
We'll end up with lickspittle toadying Government, and an even worse civil service, which will further reinforce Cummings views on internal obstruction, conspiracy and incompetence and ever escalate it in a spiral effect via the magnificent phenomena of confirmation bias.
This will get worse and worse until they're turfed out.
I remember you asking me (sometime after the Brexit vote) what it would take for me to vote Conservative again.
Well.... definitely not this lot.
Why would you ever want to do that?
Do you not see that where we are is the result of Tory (and Tory-driven) decisions over the last 40 years, and even longer?
This lot are not outliers, merely a logical next step.
As I get older, I find myself becoming more right wing and reactionary but I have never, ever been so distant from the Conservative Party.
so youll be voting \UKIP ?
Now you are being silly. Mind you, I started out considering Dave Nellist to be a pinko Tory.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
So why didn’t he do just that with his 80 seat majority?
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
Oh be realistic.
I don't think anyone seriously thought the deal was absolutely perfect. But it was good enough for the year to get us independence and now we need to get through to finalising our future relationship.
As far as independence goes, ours is going rather smoothly so far.
You are acting as an idealist. I am acting as a realist. As a realist, I think people will understand that Brexit is as RCS put it a rather unique circumstance.
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
So why didn’t he do just that with his 80 seat majority?
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
I am most certainly not defending him and want his resignation
On the subject of treaties, countries do in fact abrogate them relatively frequently. The consequences of such actions are rarely too severe (in general), although it will clearly have a more significant impact on the level of trust of the person you broke the treaty with. What is slightly unusual about this (if it happens), is that usually treaties are abrogated after an election and a change in leadership.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Thank you Robert. Glad to see someone else can recognise what I'm saying (even if you disagree) and not react with abject horror as if I had just suggested killing the firstborne of every family. And I agree about the uniqueness of Brexit.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
Wasn't every Tory required to support the oven ready deal? The one that contained a Northern Ireland protocol that protected the province from the consequences of no deal?
Yes and the deal has served its initial purpose. It got us outside of the EU and now we are a free country.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
The original WA did not include the provision for a customs border between the UK and NI. It was inserted by Johnson's government, after he re-opened negotiations, and was passed in record time, including weekend sittings of Parliament, at his insistence, and despite widespread opposition. Boris repeatedly said that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but you're trying to tell us that he signed a bad deal anyway, and that this is "no surprise"?
The old Parliament wouldn't let us walk away to no deal and this deal was signed under the old Parliament, though they refused to enact it. We've had an election since but had already agreed this deal by then.
We can argue Labour has moved away from representing the poor as well (good grounds to agree) but it is wrong to say the Tories are the party of anyone but the rich
Are you 13?
The Tories exist for people who work for their own money.
People who work voted against leaving the EU, rather unsurprisingly.
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.
Yes, but at that point we're beyond what is normally considered to be "law". I don't follow the law because I want to retain the good will of my local police force or a good reputation with the judge, I do it because I'll be punished if I don't.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
But what Boris is trying to do is pretend that he is not breaking international law. A treaty is not something that is unilaterally amendable. Boris could renege on the deal and take the consequences as I have already set out of seeing the UK relegated to a state not to be trusted. It would be a deeply stupid thing to do but But what he can't do is claim he has amended the treaty and expect any other country to do anything other than laugh at him. If unilaterally decides he will not abide by all the terms then the treaty is dead. To claim anything else is simply dishonest.
If there is one thing our PM excels at, it is being dishonest!
Aren't you lot complaining the government is being too honest saying its prepared to break international law where it suits us to do so?
Comments
On top of the tech, there is all the politics shenanigans, initially backed by Labour government, despite Tony Benn doing everything to stop it, then Thatcher got elected & eventually privatised and sold off.
Not sure the word there is honour.
Cost the governemnt a bit.
"In total, Inmos had received £211 million from the government, but did not become profitable.
In April 1989, Inmos was sold to SGS-Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). Around the same time, work was started on an enhanced transputer, the T9000. This encountered various technical problems and delays, and was eventually abandoned, signalling the end of the development of the transputer as a parallel processing platform. However, transputer derivatives such as the ST20 were later incorporated into chipsets for embedded applications such as set-top boxes.
In December 1994, Inmos was fully assimilated into STMicroelectronics, and the usage of the Inmos brand name was discontinued.
1. Others break International laws, so why can't the UK.
BUT
2. The UK breaking international laws will in no way encourage others.
It would appear Philip Thompson's UK is very easily influenced but entirely uninfluential
1. Others break International laws, so why can't the UK.
BUT
2. The UK breaking international laws will in no way encourage others.
It would appear Philip Thompson's UK is very easily influenced but entirely uninfluential
Ultimately it was a mistake that he didn't find a way to do so with Cummings, and it will be a mistake now. Somehow he has to demonstrate the leadership that Johnson isn't showing by intervening on issues like this in a non-partisan way.
I can't think of any other occasion where a treaty is abrogated by the same person who signed it, in the same year it was signed, and almost immediately after winning an election on the basis of signing the treaty.
On the subject of British law, there are lots of treaties which place other courts above British law, and which require British courts to pay attention to the deliberations of those bodies. Those range from ISDS Tribunals created in trade deals, to the International Telecom Union or International Postal Union's courts. (Which rule on very, very narrow and technical measures, but which we are treaty bound to follow.)
All that being said, the consequences of us walking away from the Withdrawal Agreement, via bringing in a law that is incompatible with it, would probably not cause too many long term problems for the UK. People recognise that the circumstances of the UK leaving the EU are unique.
But it does raise the question: if you plan on No Deal, and you plan on abrogating your treaty obligations, why didn't the UK simply leave the EU by repealing the European Union (Communities) Act? It would have been far simpler.
Do you not see that where we are is the result of Tory (and Tory-driven) decisions over the last 40 years, and even longer?
This lot are not outliers, merely a logical next step.
Anyway, I'm not a Biden supporter
(and if you think Biden is a fighter against racism, look at who he used to hang out with in Congress and describe as his friends)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
But probably, yes.
I assumed it was a comment on Brexit.
Occam's Razor...
It is, in the Talleyrandian manner, a blunder.
International law is much more like civil law than criminal, but most people don't know the difference. One could reasonably argue that the current plan is an "efficient breach" of a contract that would be impossibly onerous to comply with, and it's not obvious that this argument is wrong. I'm not saying that it's right, just that reasonable people could disagree about it.
The framing of "breaking international law" conjures the image of judges somewhere (Strasbourg?) tut-tutting over Boris's latest shenanigans. If you voted for Boris precisely because you like the fact that he's willing to piss off over-educated foreigners who feel entitled to tell us what to do "because it's international law and there's nothing you can do about it" then this feels like winning!
Focus instead on the fact that Boris is breaking *his own* law, from *his own* treaty, one that he effectively overthrew the previous PM in order to put in place, and which was a centrepiece of his general election campaign and victory, and I think you get a very different outcome. I'm not saying that you should stop caring about international law, just that it's not the thing you want to lead with if you want to persuade people that Boris is seriously screwing up.
It's a long-standing problem in politics that it's hard to explain why someone is making a mistake if they're doing so in a technically-complex field, such as international law. Experts may opine, but it's easy to get some rentagob to argue the toss and make it look complicated. Hypocrisy and self-contradiction, though, doesn't require any understanding of the matter at hand. Boris said "this is a great deal for Britain, vote for me and we'll enact it". Boris is now saying "this is a bad deal for Britain, we'll break our own law to prevent it". This does not have to be complicated.
As for why we didn't just leave by repealing the Act, the old Parliament wouldn't let us do that. We've had an election since and we're in a new era.
https://twitter.com/GutoLlewelyn/status/1303309897543680000
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
Just stop.
A terrible thing to say and even more terrible to know it's true. Unprecedented in modern times really.
You say that about "rubbish" as if it is a shock. The UK got us to sign the Withdrawal Agreement under duress, they knew that and deliberately separated the trade talks from the Withdrawal Agreement talks and Parliament wouldn't let us walk away. The whole thing was exceptional circumstances, under duress and yes to use a word bits of it might be "rubbish".
If the EU want to play hardball in the future relationship negotiations then so should we and if that means reopening old battles they thought they had cleverly won under duress then so be it.
Now as for what happens forwards, that is up to us as a sovereign country to determine. And if the EU intend to abuse elements we signed under duress 12 months ago . . . I am more than happy to tear them up and walk away.
It isn't even a good guide to, erm Pirates
Nor what they did in the Caribbean.
I've always been a fan of the idea of post-Brexit Britain as "Libertarian Pirate Island", hence my avatar.
Face it: he signed the deal, campaigned for it, told us how wonderful it was, got all his MPs to sign up to it, passed it through Parliament, boasted about what he’d done and is now trying to tell us that it’s a crock of shit and should be ignored.
Forget international law. This shows him to be a liar, an incompetent and profoundly contemptuous of his MPs and all the voters who put their faith in him and made him PM.
You should have the self-respect not to defend such a man.
They act entirely on the behalf of the rentier ruling class.
The only policy is staying in power permanently.
Government money is used to keep the rent-yielding structures in place, and to be siphoned to fellow Tories who can't give up the pretence of a day job.
Just occasionally a scrap will be tossed off the top table to prevent revolution.
Five. More. Years.
I cannot believe a conservative made such a statement and at the dispatch box
Shame on you Boris Johnson
I don't think anyone seriously thought the deal was absolutely perfect. But it was good enough for the year to get us independence and now we need to get through to finalising our future relationship.
As far as independence goes, ours is going rather smoothly so far.
You are acting as an idealist. I am acting as a realist. As a realist, I think people will understand that Brexit is as RCS put it a rather unique circumstance.