Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » That was then. This is now.

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 9 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » That was then. This is now.

“Britain does not break treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may wish to make.” – Margaret Thatcher , Leader of the Opposition, April 1975

Read the full story here

«13456713

Comments

  • Be you ever so high, the law is above you, but Boris can fix that.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,390
    edited September 9
    OT maths meets fantasy football -- this video just showed up in my YT suggestions. Not sure why because I can't count to pi without getting hungry and am a racing (and politics) punter. But I gather some PBers do indulge in both, so fwiw:-

    Can maths tell us how to win at fantasy football?

    Oxford Mathematician Josh Bull won the 2019-2020 Premier League Fantasy Football competition from nearly 8 million entrants. So how did he do it? Did he by any chance use mathematics?

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzEuweGrHvc
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012

    OT maths meets fantasy football -- this video just showed up in my YT suggestions. Not sure why because I can't count to pi without getting hungry and am a racing (and politics) punter. But I gather some PBers do indulge in both, so fwiw:-

    Can maths tell us how to win at fantasy football?

    Oxford Mathematician Josh Bull won the 2019-2020 Premier League Fantasy Football competition from nearly 8 million entrants. So how did he do it? Did he by any chance use mathematics?

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzEuweGrHvc

    He actually came second. The guy that won was a racist or something:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53740931
  • From the 2019 manifesto:
    We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    I like the way this article contains quotes from two different Sir Bernard Jenkins’.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/senior-tories-urge-ministers-to-scrap-illegal-brexit-rule-plan

    “Senior Brexiter and chair of the Liaison committee” Bernard Jenkins - “the Govt must have misspoke - this legislation is purely about the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement”

    “Chair of the ERG” Bernard Jenkins - “we only voted for the WA under the understanding that we would ditch it subsequently”.

    What’s that I hear you say? They’re the same person? Surely not!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099
    alex_ said:

    I like the way this article contains quotes from two different Sir Bernard Jenkins’.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/senior-tories-urge-ministers-to-scrap-illegal-brexit-rule-plan

    “Senior Brexiter and chair of the Liaison committee” Bernard Jenkins - “the Govt must have misspoke - this legislation is purely about the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement”

    “Chair of the ERG” Bernard Jenkins - “we only voted for the WA under the understanding that we would ditch it subsequently”.

    What’s that I hear you say? They’re the same person? Surely not!

    The second of course suggesting that this was the ‘cunning plan’ all along and that the electorate was told lies about the wonderful deal that lay ahead.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    edited September 9
    The interests of everyone would I think be best served if the EU were to walk away from the talks now. It would have been even better had they done so two months ago. Because they continue it allows the Govt in this country to deflect attention from the implications of no deal and the Government’s complete lack of preparation and the consequences.

    Actually force the Govt to deal with it as a certain reality, and actually get the British press to focus on it and what it means, rather than doing the govt bidding of presenting it as a threat to blackmail the EU, and there may still be a slim chance of some sort of deal. Or any no deal period being shorter than it might otherwise be.
  • Yes officer, I am breaking the law but only in a very specific and limited way...

    Such as not sending my child to school (WE WILL FINE YOU) or not self-isolating after the authorities didn't take my details (WE WILL FINE YOU) or taking a big shit outside parliament to show my contempt for their contempt for this country.

    And so today's headline. Gatherings of 6 to be banned. My one and only trip to the pub. 3 of us at a table. 4 others at a neighbouring table. Lots of other spaced out tables. If people from more than 6 households being in a room spreads the pox then that's pubs done. Schools. Churches. Hell even my local takeaway has more than 6 staff.

    Except that they will half-arsed set a rule with huge logic holes in it. And people will, then break this new law in a very specific and limited way- something the government and certain PBers will of course support
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,526
    A pause in the Oxford vaccine trial, which might or might not be due to an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,526
    Remember the thousands of bikers descending on a small town ?

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960
    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    edited September 9
    Nigelb said:

    A pause in the Oxford vaccine trial, which might or might not be due to an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

    Of course these sort of things probably happen all the time in vaccine trials, and are in part why trials normally take so long. But they don’t get any publicity because it is parts of the normal processes towards ensuring vaccines are safe and/or who should not have them.

    Unusually these vaccine trials are happening under the glare of the World’s media, reported on simplistically and often with little understanding of the process, and could potentially hole any mass vaccination programme below the waterline before it even begins. The general public will zero in on the eventual minuscule risk of adverse reaction, the court of public opinion will declare it “unsafe”, and uptake levels will plummet.

    Even more so as it is protecting against a virus that itself is harmless to a huge majority of those who get it. To say that a vaccine is not a “silver bullet” is an understatement.
  • Yes officer, I am breaking the law but only in a very specific and limited way...

    Such as not sending my child to school (WE WILL FINE YOU) or not self-isolating after the authorities didn't take my details (WE WILL FINE YOU) or taking a big shit outside parliament to show my contempt for their contempt for this country.

    And so today's headline. Gatherings of 6 to be banned. My one and only trip to the pub. 3 of us at a table. 4 others at a neighbouring table. Lots of other spaced out tables. If people from more than 6 households being in a room spreads the pox then that's pubs done. Schools. Churches. Hell even my local takeaway has more than 6 staff.

    Except that they will half-arsed set a rule with huge logic holes in it. And people will, then break this new law in a very specific and limited way- something the government and certain PBers will of course support

    Cramming into a train (especially if headed into London) = fine

    Seven people going on a picnic in a park = bad
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,526
    edited September 9
    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    A pause in the Oxford vaccine trial, which might or might not be due to an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

    Of course these sort of things probably happen all the time in vaccine trials, and are in part why trials normally take so long. But they don’t get any publicity because it is parts of the normal processes towards ensuring vaccines are safe and/or who should not have them.

    Unusually these vaccine trials are happening under the glare of the World’s media, reported on simplistically and often with little understanding of the process, and could potentially hole any mass vaccination programme below the waterline before it even begins. The general public will zero in on the eventual minuscule risk of adverse reaction, the court of public opinion will declare it “unsafe”, and uptake levels will plummet.
    It’s entirely possible that this was in the placebo arm (and this condition is a rare side effect of COVID, FWIW).

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 24,526
    edited September 9
    Nigelb said:

    Remember the thousands of bikers descending on a small town ?

    I ought to point out there’s some scepticism about the size of that estimate, thought general agreement about the effect.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309
    Excellent header. Succinct.
  • Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 744
    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    Nothing really matters right now apart from putting an end to this lockdown misery. However much some obsess here about brexit and the withdrawal agreement.

    And there’s a gaping political hole for someone to fill, if they stand up and start making the grown up case for the Swedish approach, rather than doubling down on the fear and hysteria.

    Quite clear that Starmer isn’t going to fill it. And the Lib Dems are led by the same empty suit who’s been invisible since December.

    I would suggest that should anyone step into this political void, the government’s polling support would collapse.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    edited September 9
    Nigelb said:

    A pause in the Oxford vaccine trial, which might or might not be due to an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

    Transverse myelitis can often recover, but has much in common with MS. It is often provoked by a viral infection.

    http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Related-Conditions/Transverse-Myelitis
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198
    moonshine said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    Nothing really matters right now apart from putting an end to this lockdown misery. However much some obsess here about brexit and the withdrawal agreement.

    And there’s a gaping political hole for someone to fill, if they stand up and start making the grown up case for the Swedish approach, rather than doubling down on the fear and hysteria.

    Quite clear that Starmer isn’t going to fill it. And the Lib Dems are led by the same empty suit who’s been invisible since December.

    I would suggest that should anyone step into this political void, the government’s polling support would collapse.
    Paging Nigel?

    Oh I hope not!
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817
    I suppose starting the new rules in five days time gives plenty of time to change them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    I'll take 1\15000 odds of an adverse reaction. Chances of a serious reaction to covid are 1/20 minimum ?
  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
  • Yes officer, I am breaking the law but only in a very specific and limited way...

    Such as not sending my child to school (WE WILL FINE YOU) or not self-isolating after the authorities didn't take my details (WE WILL FINE YOU) or taking a big shit outside parliament to show my contempt for their contempt for this country.

    And so today's headline. Gatherings of 6 to be banned. My one and only trip to the pub. 3 of us at a table. 4 others at a neighbouring table. Lots of other spaced out tables. If people from more than 6 households being in a room spreads the pox then that's pubs done. Schools. Churches. Hell even my local takeaway has more than 6 staff.

    Except that they will half-arsed set a rule with huge logic holes in it. And people will, then break this new law in a very specific and limited way- something the government and certain PBers will of course support

    Cramming into a train (especially if headed into London) = fine

    Seven people going on a picnic in a park = bad
    7 people? In Pret? Have a Pride of Britain award
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,692
    moonshine said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    Nothing really matters right now apart from putting an end to this lockdown misery. However much some obsess here about brexit and the withdrawal agreement.

    And there’s a gaping political hole for someone to fill, if they stand up and start making the grown up case for the Swedish approach, rather than doubling down on the fear and hysteria.

    Quite clear that Starmer isn’t going to fill it. And the Lib Dems are led by the same empty suit who’s been invisible since December.

    I would suggest that should anyone step into this political void, the government’s polling support would collapse.
    I suggest that while the last sentence is correct (less so the rest. I'm afraid) there are too many people who became entitled to put the letters MP after their name last December to make that collapse effective.
    Meanwhile it's instructive to look at the front pages of todays newspapers, as shown on the BBC. The Express and Times have a cheerful upbeat PM Johnson; the Mirror a downbeat miserable one. The Guardian's one is neutral.

  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Oh come off it Philip. Can we do this? Yes of course. Should we do this? Err no. Abrogating treaties signed in good faith makes it unlikely future counterparties will sign treaties you want in good faith. Because we have shown that our word is worthless.

    What makes this absurd is what treaty we are breaking. Is it a Bendy Bananas treaty imposed on us by callous Europeans? No sir, this is Boris's Brexit Blockbuster negotiated by the sex prowler himself. So proud he was of his treaty that he called a general election to enaure it became law. Got scores of new Tory MPs elected on manifesto to implement it. And now he wants to scrap it because he didn't understand it.

    You have chosen a hill of almost HYUFDian absurdity to make a stand on...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Troll non-stop...
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 3,284
    Excellent header although the accompanying photo is a bit much this early in the morning. Perhaps a trigger warning next time.
    On topic: thankfully we scheduled our daughter's birthday party for Sunday, so it just slips under the net. But all the kids' normal extra curricular activities, things like Scouts and drama classes, where people have worked so hard to get in person activities set up with social distancing to comply with the previous rules, are now fucked (yet kids are crammed together in school in "bubbles" of 240... Go figure).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099
    Pulpstar said:

    I'll take 1\15000 odds of an adverse reaction. Chances of a serious reaction to covid are 1/20 minimum ?

    Certainly if you read the small print on many common medicines under "rare", some of the remote possibilities can appear dramatic
  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Cartoon political philosophy. Like your claim to be a "libertarian" when there isn't much left to be libertarian about. I keep expecting you to stun us with the claim that homosexuality between consenting adults should be legal.

    But thanks for sharing your personal opinion on a question of jurisprudence. Have you held high judicial office for long?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,692

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    I rather wonder what Boris would consider a resigning matter! Up to now people have demanded his resignation, and been in a position to enforce those demands.
    Now ...........

    Doesn't, of course, apply to 'matters of the heart' Or trousers!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Looking through why the Govt is doing this according to the Sun on twitter Well looks like with No Deal the only way out is a unified Ireland. Its expensive to run anyway.
    With Scotland leaving too, back to the Kingdom of England which did well enough for 780 years till 1707
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Oh come off it Philip. Can we do this? Yes of course. Should we do this? Err no. Abrogating treaties signed in good faith makes it unlikely future counterparties will sign treaties you want in good faith. Because we have shown that our word is worthless.

    What makes this absurd is what treaty we are breaking. Is it a Bendy Bananas treaty imposed on us by callous Europeans? No sir, this is Boris's Brexit Blockbuster negotiated by the sex prowler himself. So proud he was of his treaty that he called a general election to enaure it became law. Got scores of new Tory MPs elected on manifesto to implement it. And now he wants to scrap it because he didn't understand it.

    You have chosen a hill of almost HYUFDian absurdity to make a stand on...
    And completely irrelevant to the issue at the heart of the Thatcher quote above. “Britain does not break treaties”. Not because they can’t. But because to do so would be bad for Britain. It does not matter what is in the treaty. We do not break them. Because the price of doing so, even once, is catastrophic for our international reputation and ability to do deals in the future.

    In a way it’s a bit like the argument on debt default. Britain has never defaulted on its debt obligations. Do it once, even temporarily, and the price is paid back over decades.
  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    I rather wonder what Boris would consider a resigning matter! Up to now people have demanded his resignation, and been in a position to enforce those demands.
    Now ...........

    Doesn't, of course, apply to 'matters of the heart' Or trousers!
    I was astonished to hear a cabinet minister stand at the despatch box and admit to wanting to break an international treaty

    That is a step too far for me and in my opinion for Boris

    He needs to go
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.

    Always good to have a late convert.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302
    moonshine said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    Nothing really matters right now apart from putting an end to this lockdown misery. However much some obsess here about brexit and the withdrawal agreement.

    And there’s a gaping political hole for someone to fill, if they stand up and start making the grown up case for the Swedish approach, rather than doubling down on the fear and hysteria.

    Quite clear that Starmer isn’t going to fill it. And the Lib Dems are led by the same empty suit who’s been invisible since December.

    I would suggest that should anyone step into this political void, the government’s polling support would collapse.
    That`s a very good post, Moonshine.

    I`d be very pleased if Ed Davey were to enter that void - we are talkng about liberties, after all. Won`t happen though.

    I can`t help cheekily reflecting on my own PB header, written close to the start of all this:

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/from-stocky-why-it-should-be-made-clear-that-lockdown-will-not-extend-past-12-weeks/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    Pulpstar said:

    I'll take 1\15000 odds of an adverse reaction. Chances of a serious reaction to covid are 1/20 minimum ?

    I suppose that the concern is that this may not be an isolated Transverse Myelitis, and that more generalised demyelination may be an issue.

    According to this article, there was a 1 in 20 000 risk of severe demeylination with small pox vaccination in the 1962 outbreak.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83700/

    Hopefully this is a one off, and turns out not to be a major issue, but there is a plausuible biological link to the vaccine.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Lewis might issue a clarification. What parliament proposes looks to arguably have a get out clause in the WA under the paragraph Bill Cash* stuck in


    * No laughing at the back
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,283

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    Come on, football fans have more self-awareness. They know that if they were a fan of the other team they would be shouting the other team's side.

    Whereas some posters on here are so keen to tie themselves on knots defending their cult it's actually delusional.
  • Jonathan said:

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.

    Always good to have a late convert.
    I want Boris to go but I still want to see brexit concluded and I am not about to leave the conservative party
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    I rather wonder what Boris would consider a resigning matter! Up to now people have demanded his resignation, and been in a position to enforce those demands.
    Now ...........

    Doesn't, of course, apply to 'matters of the heart' Or trousers!
    Nothing - for he has less morals than an alley cat.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 6,746
    Pulpstar said:

    Lewis might issue a clarification. What parliament proposes looks to arguably have a get out clause in the WA under the paragraph Bill Cash* stuck in


    * No laughing at the back

    Nope

  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    I rather wonder what Boris would consider a resigning matter! Up to now people have demanded his resignation, and been in a position to enforce those demands.
    Now ...........

    Doesn't, of course, apply to 'matters of the heart' Or trousers!
    I was astonished to hear a cabinet minister stand at the despatch box and admit to wanting to break an international treaty

    That is a step too far for me and in my opinion for Boris

    He needs to go
    Not just any old treaty. Boris's Brexit Treaty. Boris's Get Brexit Done Treaty. Boris's "here is my manifesto elect my party and we will enact this treaty" Treaty.

    And now he wants to break it! And remember how some insisted on here that it would have very limited impact on future trade deals? Bzzzz wrong:

    "Senior Democrats have warned that any attempt by the UK government to backtrack on the Brexit agreement on Northern Ireland would jeopardize a future US-UK free trade deal and could hobble bilateral relations across the board if Joe Biden wins the presidency." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/brexit-northern-ireland-us-uk-trade-deal.

    They go on: "Diplomatic sources in the US suggested that the UK government might not have fully thought through the ramifications of its abrupt announcement and had been taken aback by the pushback in Washington.

    “It is mind-boggling that Johnson would even consider doing this. He is breaching the only red line Biden has when it comes to Brexit which is to protect the Good Friday Agreement,”"
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    edited September 9
    EDIT: The footage behind Hancock was on a loop!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280
    edited September 9
    Pulpstar said:

    Lewis might issue a clarification. What parliament proposes looks to arguably have a get out clause in the WA under the paragraph Bill Cash* stuck in


    * No laughing at the back

    Any clause in the Withdrawal Agreement bill is irrelevant. It only relates to domestic law and has no bearing in International law on the Agreement itself (which obviously doesn’t have such a clause)

    And anyway, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the issue is not whether the U.K. has the right to break treaty obligations (although to do so it must repudiate the treaty - it cannot ignore aspects of it whilst officially claiming to stand by it). It is, fundamentally, about whether it should.

    “Britain does not break Treaty obligations”.
  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Yes, this is the Chinese argument. The Russians use it, too. As do the Iranians and the Saudis. We are in exalted company.

    What is most interesting, though, is that extremists like you will not take responsibility for this decision to renege on commitments voted into law by this Parliament just a few months ago, after an election campaign in which the electorate was told the deal agreed was a triumph. Instead, you will blame others for this flagrant dishonesty. You do not even have the courage of your convictions.

    And, have you managed to Google a justification for your claim yesterday that Tory and LibDem MPs knowingly and deliberately voted to break international law in 2013?

  • If I may return to the latest Barnard Castle Eye Test fiasco for a moment. More interesting quotes in the Guardian highlighting how this is nonsense on stilts again:

    "It also comes after an online meeting Johnson held with police forces last week, where officers said they wanted to see simpler rules on social distancing.

    The new limit, which comes into effect on Monday, applies across all of England and in both private and public spaces, including parks, pubs and restaurants. It also covers all ages, meaning children will be prevented from gathering in larger groups, for example to play informal games of football.

    The only exemptions are when households or support bubbles are larger than six people; where gatherings are for work or education purposes; or for weddings, funerals, and organised team sports conducted in a safe way."

    Prevent children gathering in large groups. What, like school, college, university? They can gather in a large group to walk home from school across the park - thats ok. But if they stop for informal games of football thats going to be illegal.

    I also note that its OK to gather in large groups for work purposes. Like running a pub for example. As your pub can't function without pissheads then having more than 6 people in your pub is also ok. As long as they don't go for that informal game of football afterwards.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,145
    Scott_xP said:
    LOL and Germany has such a excellent record in this department.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302

    Jonathan said:

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.

    Always good to have a late convert.
    I want Boris to go but I still want to see brexit concluded and I am not about to leave the conservative party
    Good for you. You are a strong conservative (small c) and should vote for the party that stands on this ideology. I broke from this principle at the last GE, voting Green instead of LD, and I`ve felt bad about it ever since.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 40,729
    edited September 9
    alex_ said:

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Oh come off it Philip. Can we do this? Yes of course. Should we do this? Err no. Abrogating treaties signed in good faith makes it unlikely future counterparties will sign treaties you want in good faith. Because we have shown that our word is worthless.

    What makes this absurd is what treaty we are breaking. Is it a Bendy Bananas treaty imposed on us by callous Europeans? No sir, this is Boris's Brexit Blockbuster negotiated by the sex prowler himself. So proud he was of his treaty that he called a general election to enaure it became law. Got scores of new Tory MPs elected on manifesto to implement it. And now he wants to scrap it because he didn't understand it.

    You have chosen a hill of almost HYUFDian absurdity to make a stand on...
    And completely irrelevant to the issue at the heart of the Thatcher quote above. “Britain does not break treaties”. Not because they can’t. But because to do so would be bad for Britain. It does not matter what is in the treaty. We do not break them. Because the price of doing so, even once, is catastrophic for our international reputation and ability to do deals in the future.

    In a way it’s a bit like the argument on debt default. Britain has never defaulted on its debt obligations. Do it once, even temporarily, and the price is paid back over decades.
    A debt default is a different matter.

    If in 1996 when the Tories were facing getting wiped out to Labour, the party were to agree international treaties in order to rule out Labours manifesto pledges ... Eg to sign a deal with the United States saying that we wouldn't introduce a National Minimum Wage then should the new Government be forced to abide by that under all circumstances?
  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    Johnson is morally and politically corrupt. This has always been known. The test now is for the Conservative party and its long-standing claim to be the party of the Union, of patriotism and of law and order. The signs are that it will fail spectacularly.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    No Parliament can bind its successors, but this one doesn't seem to be willing to be bound by itself, having passed the treaty just 8 months ago after a curtailed debate.

    Worth noting that there has not yet been a parliamentary vote on this, so currently it is the executive not being bound by Parliament.

    Great, punchy header @Cyclefree
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Scott_xP said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Lewis might issue a clarification. What parliament proposes looks to arguably have a get out clause in the WA under the paragraph Bill Cash* stuck in


    * No laughing at the back

    Nope

    Ok. I thought the para might be in the WA but obviously its a nonsense in international terms if it is in our Acts. Still if the Govt does press forward with it it'll be legal domestically which means the Supreme Court can't overrule it I think.
    Internationally the Govt looks cooked on this one, iy matters not what OUR laws are in France or Berlin
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 40,729
    edited September 9

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Yes, this is the Chinese argument. The Russians use it, too. As do the Iranians and the Saudis. We are in exalted company.

    What is most interesting, though, is that extremists like you will not take responsibility for this decision to renege on commitments voted into law by this Parliament just a few months ago, after an election campaign in which the electorate was told the deal agreed was a triumph. Instead, you will blame others for this flagrant dishonesty. You do not even have the courage of your convictions.

    And, have you managed to Google a justification for your claim yesterday that Tory and LibDem MPs knowingly and deliberately voted to break international law in 2013?

    My justification for saying it is that it is what I believe that Brandon Lewis said in Parliament.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241
    tlg86 said:

    Just watching Matt Hancock on BBC Breakfast. He's in the London Newsroom and the office behind him looks quite busy. I saw our plans for office reopening and the capacity is much reduced (our section is down from 12 desks to three). But that BBC office looks as busy as you might expect in normal times.

    EDIT: I assume what's behind Hancock is real time footage and not on a loop - it would be a bit weird to have something like that on a loop.

    There have been occasions in the past where a live feed included people setting off home and far more embarrassing incidents - it wouldn't surprise me if it was a loop.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960
    Boris sees himself above the law, that’s dangerous. It’s not the first time. The rules have never applied to him. Unlike his Bullingdon days I doubt he is going to pay for the damage.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    Johnson is morally and politically corrupt. This has always been known. The test now is for the Conservative party and its long-standing claim to be the party of the Union, of patriotism and of law and order. The signs are that it will fail spectacularly.

    Put to shame by some leading US republicans; who’d have thought.

    Although my local MP has described the proposed Tory planning reforms as “breathtakingly bad” and promises to rebel against them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,391
    Thinking back, the Govt proposed law change looks to me to be PRECISELY what the backstop in May's agreement was there for.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    eek said:

    tlg86 said:

    Just watching Matt Hancock on BBC Breakfast. He's in the London Newsroom and the office behind him looks quite busy. I saw our plans for office reopening and the capacity is much reduced (our section is down from 12 desks to three). But that BBC office looks as busy as you might expect in normal times.

    EDIT: I assume what's behind Hancock is real time footage and not on a loop - it would be a bit weird to have something like that on a loop.

    There have been occasions in the past where a live feed included people setting off home and far more embarrassing incidents - it wouldn't surprise me if it was a loop.
    It was a loop - I rewound and saw someone disappear, a bit like that bit in Speed when Dennis Hopper realises he's been had! :lol:
  • Foxy said:

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    No Parliament can bind its successors, but this one doesn't seem to be willing to be bound by itself, having passed the treaty just 8 months ago after a curtailed debate.

    Worth noting that there has not yet been a parliamentary vote on this, so currently it is the executive not being bound by Parliament.

    Great, punchy header @Cyclefree
    If the Government is violating the law before a vote in Parliament then I do not approve of that.

    My position is that Parliament can change the law. Unless or until it does then the law remains the law, but planning to change the law is not a breach of the law ... And if the law is changed then there is a new law.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    It is an irony that Boris has done everything and more that they said Corbyn would do.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    Jonathan said:

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    He should have gone when he illegally prorogued parliament and at subsequent moments since. But lots of people have defended him on his ego fuelled path of destruction every step of way.

    Always good to have a late convert.
    Everyone knew what Johnson was like when the Tories chose him. Having elected the mendacious, lazy oaf just a year ago Tories bear direct responsibility for what happens as a result, and that includes @Big_G_NorthWales
  • IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Thinking back, the Govt proposed law change looks to me to be PRECISELY what the backstop in May's agreement was there for.

    And precisely why we didn't agree to it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099
    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    It is an irony that Boris has done everything and more that they said Corbyn would do.
    And it is hard to believe that Ed Miliband ever had the capability to create any more chaos than all of this.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 744
    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    Most days I wake up and assume Corbyn did win the election. Ballooning deficit plugged by printed money, nationalisation of rail, instructions telling private firms how to run their own affairs, an obsession with state aid at the expense of free trade, media leaks of impending wealth taxes... And of course, the insidious fear mongering and micromanagement of our daily lives out of all proportion to the risk.

    Apart from the stamp duty holiday, it’s hard to think of much at all this government has done that a Corbyn government would not have.

    How disappointing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    OT maths meets fantasy football -- this video just showed up in my YT suggestions. Not sure why because I can't count to pi without getting hungry and am a racing (and politics) punter. But I gather some PBers do indulge in both, so fwiw:-

    Can maths tell us how to win at fantasy football?

    Oxford Mathematician Josh Bull won the 2019-2020 Premier League Fantasy Football competition from nearly 8 million entrants. So how did he do it? Did he by any chance use mathematics?

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzEuweGrHvc

    On this important topic

    Is it @Scrapheap_as_was that is the PB FFL organiser? The league doesn't seem to be up yet, though my other leagues are.

    Ominous lack of signings for Leicester this year so far, particularly with those Europa League games too. Rumours that Castagne (fullback) will sign, but not much else.
  • I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    Yes, this is the Chinese argument. The Russians use it, too. As do the Iranians and the Saudis. We are in exalted company.

    What is most interesting, though, is that extremists like you will not take responsibility for this decision to renege on commitments voted into law by this Parliament just a few months ago, after an election campaign in which the electorate was told the deal agreed was a triumph. Instead, you will blame others for this flagrant dishonesty. You do not even have the courage of your convictions.

    And, have you managed to Google a justification for your claim yesterday that Tory and LibDem MPs knowingly and deliberately voted to break international law in 2013?

    My justification for saying it is that it is what I believe that Brandon Lewis said in Parliament.
    Bless you!!!

  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,283

    Scott_xP said:
    LOL and Germany has such a excellent record in this department.
    You're comparing Johnson to Hitler? Outrageous
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302
    moonshine said:

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    Most days I wake up and assume Corbyn did win the election. Ballooning deficit plugged by printed money, nationalisation of rail, instructions telling private firms how to run their own affairs, an obsession with state aid at the expense of free trade, media leaks of impending wealth taxes... And of course, the insidious fear mongering and micromanagement of our daily lives out of all proportion to the risk.

    Apart from the stamp duty holiday, it’s hard to think of much at all this government has done that a Corbyn government would not have.

    How disappointing.
    Yes - but - do you think the government would have done all that without the exogenous shock of the pandemic?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 3,284

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
  • IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302
    Jonathan said:

    It is upsetting to see your country be turned into a unreliable, second-class state. A sort of rainy Russia.

    I remember when we were worried about our AAA rating.

    The ref result should always be subject to a confirmatory referendum for an issue so huge (as should any future Scot indy ref).

    Shame we can`t have a confirmatory referendum now. Was there a window of opportunity for parliament to enact one last year?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 1,124
    edited September 9

    I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.

    "International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.

    Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.

    I cannot believe you are trying to defend the indefensible

    Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
    I rather wonder what Boris would consider a resigning matter! Up to now people have demanded his resignation, and been in a position to enforce those demands.
    Now ...........

    Doesn't, of course, apply to 'matters of the heart' Or trousers!
    The enforcement bit is key here.

    Laura McInerney, who studied Gove and Cummings when they were at the Department for Education and she was an education journalist, has described the G+C view of rules as rules don't count unless there is a sanction for breaking them and someone with the power to enforce the sanction.

    That explains a lot- prorogation, Barnard Castle, even this breaking international law.

    And whilst it's technically true, it's blooming scary. Because who can make Johnson, Gove or Cummings do something they don't want to?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 3,284

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
    Ah, the "little bit pregnant" defence. Shoddy.
  • IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
    And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
  • The legislation will not become law until 2022 at the earliest as the Lords will inevitably reject it. So what happens in the meantime?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
    And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
    To be fair, destroying any possibility of a USA trade treaty is the only upside to this announcement.

    I suppose we will learn to love Smash and the Austin Maxi again, in the sunny uplands of Brexitshire.
  • IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
    And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
    Fine. The odds are the USA was never going to give us a trade deal in the short term anyway and some things are more important.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960
    Why would anyone sign an agreement with this government? Not worth the paper it’s written on. The government is going to have to offer trade partners the moon on a stick to take the risk of dealing with us.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    The legislation will not become law until 2022 at the earliest as the Lords will inevitably reject it. So what happens in the meantime?

    Presumably the Lords cannot be overruled by the Parliament Act as they would be upholding the Governments manifesto. What a topsy turvey world.
  • It's The Sun so take with salt but this matches my thoughts that this action is a result of Barnier overreaching and threatening us in the trade talks. If so, good.

  • IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
    And so America tells us we can stick that trade deal we will be so desperate for up our arse. C'est la vie
    Fine. The odds are the USA was never going to give us a trade deal in the short term anyway and some things are more important.
    "Some things are more important": The EU trade deal the UK won't get, the Japan Trade deal the UK won't get, any of the other 268 trade deals the UK now doesn't have and won't get because Johnson thinks laws are for things for other countries and other people.

    I suppose the "more important" things are the culture wars in the UK: should generate plenty of jobs that...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,099

    It's The Sun so take with salt but this matches my thoughts that this action is a result of Barnier overreaching and threatening us in the trade talks. If so, good.

    You are a gullible oaf, with so many Tories confirming this had been their intention from the beginning.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,280

    IanB2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Unless you are passionate nationalist or like Trumpian demagoguery, I can’t see why people support this government. Incompetent, dishonest, ineffective, ideological and with little regard for the law.

    It is interesting that some defend Boris while condemning Trump for similar behaviour. The football fan theory of politics.
    I think we can safely say that had Corbyn been elected and proceeded to break international law and his own promises, and stuff government with dodgy advisors and an army of his cronies, PB’s Tory fancrowd might not have been so relaxed about it all.
    I would not be a fan of Corbyn even had he stayed within international law so the point is moot.

    And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
    But in this case Johnson is tearing up the treaty on the basis of which he won the election.
    He's not tearing it up, he's tweaking it. C'est la vie.
    Sigh. You can't "tweak" international treaties unilaterally. You can repudiate them in full or you can tweak them by mutual consent. Those are the two options.

    Beyond that, whatever you put in domestic law is irrelevant when judging whether the treaty is being adhered to. And if there are any enforcement mechanisms written into that treaty then they will continue to apply. So in this case the UK will still be subject to the rulings of the ECJ, regardless of what changes have been made domestically.

This discussion has been closed.