I try not to criticise other posters and take Casino's point that it's counter-productive anyway. But there is a general point that may give some pause. What we are seeing is an anarcho-conservative government, in the tradition of American alt-right libertarians. That is quite different from traditional Conservatism, in the same way that I accept Corbynism is quite different from tradityional socvial democracy. I think it is reasonable to enquire whether Conswervatives feel they voted for this. If they did, fine.
This is a reminder that the choice for voters in 2019 was not great. Instead of a choice between two lawful and reasonable visions of a centrist approach to getting Brexit done as well as all the other issues facing us we had a choice between an unpredictable extreme socialist offering a unicorn negotiation and Boris leading in the direction we are now in.
Just as in the last American presidential election the common sense option of them both losing was not available.
An option now exists of a party led by someone sane and lawlike in behaviour who all of a sudden is committed to Brexit and getting it done. The problem is that SKS didn't say or act in that way when it was important to do so, neither did the party get rid of an unelectable leader when it mattered.
Labour failed to offer a centrist alternative when they needed to, and are offering one now when it is of no use. it is a major failure.
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
@Contrarian Most people vote the same way every US election - even McGovern would highly likely have carried a majority of LBJ's 1964 Democrat vote. The first 60 million votes for both Trump and Biden won't matter a jot in the final analysis of WH2020 though.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
Some posters on here and on twitter really are having a hard time grasping the fact that the supremacy of parliament has been restored by brexit.
What has that got to do with anything?
I was asking if Parliament voting to suspend elections permanently was “democracy”. We’re not discussing the supremacy of Parliament.
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
Some posters on here and on twitter really are having a hard time grasping the fact that the supremacy of parliament has been restored by brexit.
The UK Parliament told the EU we were leaving. No one stopped us.
Hmm, I was with Ms Cyclefree until the last two sentences. It really is a pernicious argument that the misdemeanours of Boris Johnson and his gang justify, in any sense whatsoever - legal, moral, or civic - the breaking of regulations designed to keep us all safe. The very last thing we should do is descend into 'they broke the law so it's OK for me too'. Not only is that reducing ourselves to the level of Boris Johnson, it's also in this case potentially risking large numbers of lives.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Well of course though, it should go without saying that Parliament is a representative democracy because it is democratically elected and democratically accountable. If Parliament ceases to be democratic, it ceases to be a representative democracy.
Hmm, I was with Ms Cyclefree until the last two sentences. It really is a pernicious argument that the misdemeanours of Boris Johnson and his gang justify, in any sense whatsoever - legal, moral, or civic - the breaking of regulations designed to keep us all safe. The very last thing we should do is descend into 'they broke the law so it's OK for me too'. Not only is that reducing ourselves to the level of Boris Johnson, it's also in this case potentially risking large numbers of lives.
If everyone disregards the law, that would be bad.
The social contract requires everyone to comply.
The issue remains BoZo and chums don't comply, and they boast about it.
It will be bad if everyone follows them, but to deny that as a possibility is unrealistic, and to be uncritical of them for doing so would be negligent.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Well of course though, it should go without saying that Parliament is a representative democracy because it is democratically elected and democratically accountable. If Parliament ceases to be democratic, it ceases to be a representative democracy.
So if Parliament passed a law that forbade women from voting in future elections, is that democracy?
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
AIUI what is proposed is that Ministers will have the power to regulate trade from and to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. That power gives them the right to override the agreement with the EU if they choose to do so.
The context of this is that the EU gave NI a special status with additional rights of access to the Single Market through Eire. The price of exercising this power would be that the EU may choose to withdraw those privileges. How significant that is for NI will very much depend upon what deal the UK has with the EU. In the event of a no deal it might be very significant and unwind some of the Irish peace accords which are built around the whole of Ireland being a single economy.
What I am finding strange about this is not that the UK government insists upon the right to regulate intra UK trade but that they think it is necessary to give these powers to Ministers now. The UK Parliament could of course grant Ministers such powers at any point so why do it now when the WA contained an undertaking that we would not do such a thing?
I think it is reasonable to infer that this is a shot across the EU's bows, that they cannot rely upon us complying with the WA indefinitely if there is no deal. This is presumably why such attention has been drawn to it. It is not a breach of an international agreement (let alone law) at all at the moment, it is the power to breach it if Ministers are so minded. This is a power we always have. Lewis could have said this power will only be used in consultation with the EU and with their agreement. He chose not to.
I am not comfortable with this tactic but both the header and many of the comments strike me as a little bit hysterical.
Heads of the civil service legal department don’t just resign on a whim.
I've just heard back from my spy fly who was in the negotiating room. He is not great on detail but his report is:
Lord Frost: you are not negotiating in good faith as you undertook, you need to compromise more. If not we will walk away and there will be no deal.
Barnier: Whatever, we will rely upon the undertakings that you gave in the WA.
Lord Frost: You shouldn't assume that you will be able to rely upon them indefinitely when there has been no genuine attempt to agree.
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is a piece of U.K. legislation. Breaching the Withdrawal Agreement necessarily involves breaching a piece of U.K. legislation.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
Hmm, I was with Ms Cyclefree until the last two sentences. It really is a pernicious argument that the misdemeanours of Boris Johnson and his gang justify, in any sense whatsoever - legal, moral, or civic - the breaking of regulations designed to keep us all safe. The very last thing we should do is descend into 'they broke the law so it's OK for me too'. Not only is that reducing ourselves to the level of Boris Johnson, it's also in this case potentially risking large numbers of lives.
If everyone disregards the law, that would be bad.
The social contract requires everyone to comply.
The issue remains BoZo and chums don't comply, and they boast about it.
It will be bad if everyone follows them, but to deny that as a possibility is unrealistic, and to be uncritical of them for doing so would be negligent.
Sure. But it's also negligent to be uncritical of anyone who breaks the law - particularly this law - as a reaction to the actions of Boris.
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
That's a point. Trump might appear to be a racist and a sexist if you judge on the usual criteria but that is just ten a penny opinion. The FACTS are that he hasn't legislated to prohibit pay rises and promotions for blacks and women. The FACTS say that even if you are both black AND a woman, if one can imagine such a thing, you can in Trump's America do very well. Indeed when I was in NYC on business last week I saw a smartly dressed ebony hued woman entering the foyer of JP Morgan and she wasn't no cleaner, trust me.
No, must do better in that second term, Donald. The base expects.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Well of course though, it should go without saying that Parliament is a representative democracy because it is democratically elected and democratically accountable. If Parliament ceases to be democratic, it ceases to be a representative democracy.
So if Parliament passed a law that forbade women from voting in future elections, is that democracy?
In my opinion no because that is undemocratic. Parliament's authority stems from the fact it is elected by the people, if the people cease to have a vote then Parliament loses its authority IMO. And women are people.
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Well, he's not very keen on Mexicans, with references to them being drug dealers, criminals and rapists. But I guess some are, so that's okay then.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Well of course though, it should go without saying that Parliament is a representative democracy because it is democratically elected and democratically accountable. If Parliament ceases to be democratic, it ceases to be a representative democracy.
So if Parliament passed a law that forbade women from voting in future elections, is that democracy?
In my opinion no because that is undemocratic. Parliament's authority stems from the fact it is elected by the people, if the people cease to have a vote then Parliament loses its authority IMO. And women are people.
So what is democratic is basically whatever you decide it is. I guess that is the classic Cummings arbitrariness.
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Enjoy. Obviously you wont read that, because you’re a moron.
Those quotes are simply pointing out criminality in people who happen to be from a different race. Trump has also pointed out criminality amongst white people down the years. Does that make him anti white?
Nope.
Honestly the sheer closed mindedness of the left on here really is something to behold.
Latest claptrap from Hancock this morning - “problems with test and trace are caused by 25% being given to people who aren’t eligible”. How would he come up with such a figure. Unless people are rocking up for tests, not giving a valid reason, and then being tested anyway.
Actually it’s more like people claiming they have CV symptoms when they haven’t. But how do you put a number on that if people are lying? Given that only 1-2% of tests return positive results anyway? (So you can’t use negative tests as a proxy to get back to the 25% figure).
In reality I suspect there’s a remarkable correlation between the 25% figure and the current capacity shortfall in the system. How convenient! We’ve built the perfect system which happens to have exactly the right capacity if it wasn’t for the (unverifiable) number if people turning up for a test who shouldn’t be!
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Well, he's not very keen on Mexicans, with references to them being drug dealers, criminals and rapists. But I guess some are, so that's okay then.
He also conceded that many Mexicans are good people.
Indeed when I was in NYC on business last week I saw a smartly dressed ebony hued woman entering the foyer of JP Morgan and she wasn't no cleaner, trust me.
No, must do better in that second term, Donald. The base expects.
As so you're one of those people that has to travel the LHR-JFK route on business ?
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Enjoy. Obviously you wont read that, because you’re a moron.
Those quotes are simply pointing out criminality in people who happen to be from a different race. Trump has also pointed out criminality amongst white people down the years. Does that make him anti white?
Nope.
Honestly the sheer closed mindedness of the left on here really is something to behold.
No, you’re just an idiot.
I’ve presented you plenty of evidence of Donald Trump’s racism, that many people across the political spectrum, not just “the left”, happily recognise, but you’re too stupid, bigoted, or immature to accept it because it doesn’t fit your culture war agenda.
Whatever, you’re wrong and that’s all that matters.
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is a piece of U.K. legislation. Breaching the Withdrawal Agreement necessarily involves breaching a piece of U.K. legislation.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
"Former Cabinet minister" . . . such a misleading term. Which Cabinet?
Gordon Brown is a former Cabinet minister, so is Dominic Grieve.
Err, the tweet says 'a former Cabinet minister involved in putting together the EU deal'.
Boris's revised deal or the original May deal before it was amended?
That's unclear, but I imagine the latter because the subject is the Northern Ireland bit, and the one in force is the inferior version negotiated by Boris Johnson.
The interesting thing is the suggestion that the EU 'threatened' to impose full checks on foods going to NI from the UK in the event of no deal. What this shows is how completely out with the fairies the government is. They don't seem to understand that no deal means no deal. If there's no deal, then the UK becomes a third country from the EU's point of view (without even the limited recognition of standards which Australia has). Thus by definition the EU won't recognise UK standards and by EU law will have to impose the legally-binding checks which apply to foodstuffs coming into the EU, and therefore (under Boris' border-in-the-Irish-Sea deal), into NI.
There's no threat, it's the inevitable and legally unavoidable consequence of No Deal. The EU doesn't have any legal basis not to impose all these checks, in the event of no deal.
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Well of course though, it should go without saying that Parliament is a representative democracy because it is democratically elected and democratically accountable. If Parliament ceases to be democratic, it ceases to be a representative democracy.
So if Parliament passed a law that forbade women from voting in future elections, is that democracy?
In my opinion no because that is undemocratic. Parliament's authority stems from the fact it is elected by the people, if the people cease to have a vote then Parliament loses its authority IMO. And women are people.
So what is democratic is basically whatever you decide it is. I guess that is the classic Cummings arbitrariness.
I'm not sure what part you are struggling with. Democracy is that we vote for Parliament, Parliament acts for a period of time, then we hold new elections for Parliament, then the new Parliament acts for a period of time.
You are trying to keep repeating questions about removing one of those vital steps - us voting. Of course if we stop voting then its no longer democracy: free and fair elections are key to democracy. If elections stop being free and fair then Parliament would no longer be a democracy.
Maybe you should try asking questions that do not involve stopping elections?
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Well, he's not very keen on Mexicans, with references to them being drug dealers, criminals and rapists. But I guess some are, so that's okay then.
He also conceded that many Mexicans are good people.
That's very gracious of him, conceding that many Mexicans are good people. Unbelievable.
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
That's a point. Trump might appear to be a racist and a sexist if you judge on the usual criteria but that is just ten a penny opinion. The FACTS are that he hasn't legislated to prohibit pay rises and promotions for blacks and women. The FACTS say that even if you are both black AND a woman, if one can imagine such a thing, you can in Trump's America do very well. Indeed when I was in NYC on business last week I saw a smartly dressed ebony hued woman entering the foyer of JP Morgan and she wasn't no cleaner, trust me.
No, must do better in that second term, Donald. The base expects.
Could jews do very well in Germany? could Asians Prosper in Idi Amin's Uganda? How did blacks do under apartheit? How do muslims do in Modern India?
Surely how people 'do' is the acid test surely, not clumsy statements that were hedged with other comments.
"Former Cabinet minister" . . . such a misleading term. Which Cabinet?
Gordon Brown is a former Cabinet minister, so is Dominic Grieve.
Err, the tweet says 'a former Cabinet minister involved in putting together the EU deal'.
Boris's revised deal or the original May deal before it was amended?
That's unclear, but I imagine the latter because the subject is the Northern Ireland bit, and the one in force is the inferior version negotiated by Boris Johnson.
The interesting thing is the suggestion that the EU 'threatened' to impose full checks on foods going to NI from the UK in the event of no deal. What this shows is how completely out with the fairies the government is. They don't seem to understand that no deal means no deal. If there's no deal, then the UK becomes a third country from the EU's point of view (without even the limited recognition of standards which Australia has). Thus by definition the EU won't recognise UK standards and by EU law will have to impose the legally-binding checks which apply to foodstuffs coming into the EU, and therefore (under Boris' border-in-the-Irish-Sea deal), into NI.
There's no threat, it's the inevitable and legally unavoidable consequence of No Deal. The EU doesn't have any legal basis not to impose all these checks, in the event of no deal.
It really isn't complicated.
But But its like the cards we hold are all jokers (like our Government)
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is a piece of U.K. legislation. Breaching the Withdrawal Agreement necessarily involves breaching a piece of U.K. legislation.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
The Act has the Cash paragraph, so in terms of domestic law the presumed legislation may well be kosher. That doesn't apply internationally however.
"Former Cabinet minister" . . . such a misleading term. Which Cabinet?
Gordon Brown is a former Cabinet minister, so is Dominic Grieve.
Err, the tweet says 'a former Cabinet minister involved in putting together the EU deal'.
Boris's revised deal or the original May deal before it was amended?
That's unclear, but I imagine the latter because the subject is the Northern Ireland bit, and the one in force is the inferior version negotiated by Boris Johnson.
The interesting thing is the suggestion that the EU 'threatened' to impose full checks on foods going to NI from the UK in the event of no deal. What this shows is how completely out with the fairies the government is. They don't seem to understand that no deal means no deal. If there's no deal, then the UK becomes a third country from the EU's point of view (without even the limited recognition of standards which Australia has). Thus by definition the EU won't recognise UK standards and by EU law will have to impose the legally-binding checks which apply to foodstuffs coming into the EU, and therefore (under Boris' border-in-the-Irish-Sea deal), into NI.
There's no threat, it's the inevitable and legally unavoidable consequence of No Deal. The EU doesn't have any legal basis not to impose all these checks, in the event of no deal.
It really isn't complicated.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility. In fact this entire episode is probably the thought experiment Robbins/May went through to conjure up such a stop.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
Hmm, I was with Ms Cyclefree until the last two sentences. It really is a pernicious argument that the misdemeanours of Boris Johnson and his gang justify, in any sense whatsoever - legal, moral, or civic - the breaking of regulations designed to keep us all safe. The very last thing we should do is descend into 'they broke the law so it's OK for me too'. Not only is that reducing ourselves to the level of Boris Johnson, it's also in this case potentially risking large numbers of lives.
But that is precisely my point.
The government has, by its actions, lost the moral authority to make this point. People will feel that they can make their own judgments, follow their own “instincts”, do what is right for them and their families and the government has by its own actions blessed that approach, whatever it may say.
“Do as I say not as I do” does not work on anyone over the age of 5.
That is why that Thatcher quote is so apposite: rule-breaking by government can lead to the loss of life. This government is being utterly cavalier with people’s lives - here and in Northern Ireland.
It is shameful but not unexpected from a Boris Johnson regime. What is really shameful and depressing is how so many people who one should have thought would have understood the dangers of such an approach are bending over backwards to justify it, minimise it, claim that it does not matter or blame others for what the government has freely chosen to do.
Hmm, I was with Ms Cyclefree until the last two sentences. It really is a pernicious argument that the misdemeanours of Boris Johnson and his gang justify, in any sense whatsoever - legal, moral, or civic - the breaking of regulations designed to keep us all safe. The very last thing we should do is descend into 'they broke the law so it's OK for me too'. Not only is that reducing ourselves to the level of Boris Johnson, it's also in this case potentially risking large numbers of lives.
But that is precisely my point.
The government has, by its actions, lost the moral authority to make this point. People will feel that they can make their own judgments, follow their own “instincts”, do what is right for them and their families and the government has by its own actions blessed that approach, whatever it may say.
“Do as I say not as I do” does not work on anyone over the age of 5.
That is why that Thatcher quote is so apposite: rule-breaking by government can lead to the loss of life. This government is being utterly cavalier with people’s lives - here and in Northern Ireland.
It is shameful but not unexpected from a Boris Johnson regime. What is really shameful and depressing is how so many people who one should have thought would have understood the dangers of such an approach are bending over backwards to justify it, minimise it, claim that it does not matter or blame others for what the government has freely chosen to do.
The government isn't breaking domestic law though.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
Actually, that does not surprise me. Trump may be trashing and polarising America and acting like a complete a*se, but he has not started any wars or military expeditions.
In that respect, he is probably one of the most "peaceable" Presidents of recent years...
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
Considering these people were repeatedly and unceremoniously rejected by the electorate, I wouldn't.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
If I was the Government I'd be glad or seeking to ensure they're all "former".
The numbers on here who can even comprehend why millions of ordinary Americans vote for Donald Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
My experience is that even in liberal Manhattan Americans do not look at their president the way CNN and MSNBC look at him. He is just another President.
They don't really think he's particularly racist or sexist either/. How could he be when me as an immigrant/black blue collar worker just got a decent raise, and me as a female investment banker just got a promotion?
Also the president is the titular head of state as well as the political head, and Americans are wary of criticising him in the same way we would be wary of criticising the Queen.
Point this stuff out and all you get is a barrage of abuse, with one poster after another waiting to pour scorn on what are quite innocent observations.
But he is racist and he is sexist. Objectively.
Where's the evidence President Trump stopped black people progressing and prospering, or plans for women to return to the kitchen?
Whether or not President Trump personally “stopped black people progressing and prospering” or “plans for women to return to the kitchen” (whatever that means) has no bearing on whether he is sexist or racist or not.
Step back and consider how ludicrous that statement sound for a minute. Re-read it.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
I’m sorry but you clearly are a moron. Donald Trump has repeatedly said racist and sexist things. He is objectively and demonstratively racist, and sexist.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
What racist things? go on quote me a racist thing Donald Trump has said 'repeatedly'
Well, he's not very keen on Mexicans, with references to them being drug dealers, criminals and rapists. But I guess some are, so that's okay then.
He also conceded that many Mexicans are good people.
That's very gracious of him, conceding that many Mexicans are good people. Unbelievable.
Hmm, I was with Ms Cyclefree until the last two sentences. It really is a pernicious argument that the misdemeanours of Boris Johnson and his gang justify, in any sense whatsoever - legal, moral, or civic - the breaking of regulations designed to keep us all safe. The very last thing we should do is descend into 'they broke the law so it's OK for me too'. Not only is that reducing ourselves to the level of Boris Johnson, it's also in this case potentially risking large numbers of lives.
But that is precisely my point.
The government has, by its actions, lost the moral authority to make this point. People will feel that they can make their own judgments, follow their own “instincts”, do what is right for them and their families and the government has by its own actions blessed that approach, whatever it may say.
“Do as I say not as I do” does not work on anyone over the age of 5.
That is why that Thatcher quote is so apposite: rule-breaking by government can lead to the loss of life. This government is being utterly cavalier with people’s lives - here and in Northern Ireland.
It is shameful but not unexpected from a Boris Johnson regime. What is really shameful and depressing is how so many people who one should have thought would have understood the dangers of such an approach are bending over backwards to justify it, minimise it, claim that it does not matter or blame others for what the government has freely chosen to do.
I bet @contrarian believes the QAnon b*llshit anarl.
I don;t even know what QAnon is.
I am not sure enable the most hardened QAnon followers know what the supposed massive conspiracy these days. Something something child sex trafficking, something something ritual sacrifices, something something something something, Donald is secretly fighting against all of this.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
If I was the Government I'd be glad or seeking to ensure they're all "former".
The problem for the government is how recently former many of them seem to be, and how others are still serving. The impression is of gathering and current opposition, rather than old grudges and scores to be settled.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
It was not a coup.
EU: We want control over NI. May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
If I was the Government I'd be glad or seeking to ensure they're all "former".
The problem for the government is how recently former many of them seem to be.
Recently former could mean five minutes ago for all it matters.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
Considering these people were repeatedly and unceremoniously rejected by the electorate, I wouldn't.
How many and who where rejected by the electorate? Not May for starters
1. The Withdrawal Act is a piece of domestic legislation. 2. The Court of Appeal has already ruled that the provisions of the Ministerial Code relating to upholding the rule of law include international law.
Does the Ministerial Code apply to Parliament voting to change the law? Any time Parliament does this by definition surely it is changing the law, so often taking something that was illegal and legalising it. Otherwise the law could not change.
If Ministers were seeking to unilaterally change the law without Parliamentary approval then that would be absolutely unacceptable but if Parliament votes to allow it then that is democracy.
If Parliament votes to remove the need for elections, is that democracy?
Parliament has that power.
I would not support that, outside of exceptional circumstances (eg pushing them back by a year due to COVID19 or WWII).
You didn’t answer the question. Is that democracy?
If there is no good reason and it is just to keep power for itself then no absolutely not.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
Right so you just admitted that not everything passed by Parliament is democracy. Thus a degree of nuance exists, which normally escapes you.
Well of course though, it should go without saying that Parliament is a representative democracy because it is democratically elected and democratically accountable. If Parliament ceases to be democratic, it ceases to be a representative democracy.
So if Parliament passed a law that forbade women from voting in future elections, is that democracy?
In my opinion no because that is undemocratic. Parliament's authority stems from the fact it is elected by the people, if the people cease to have a vote then Parliament loses its authority IMO. And women are people.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
It was not a coup.
EU: We want control over NI. May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
Some "coup"
Tariff free access to the rest of Europe whilst we're negotiating a free trade deal. The absolute horror of it all.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
Considering these people were repeatedly and unceremoniously rejected by the electorate, I wouldn't.
How many and who where rejected by the electorate? Not May for starters
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
If I was the Government I'd be glad or seeking to ensure they're all "former".
The problem for the government is how recently former many of them seem to be.
Recently former could mean five minutes ago for all it matters.
It could do, and that would be all the worse for the government if they act in concert will people still serving.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
It was not a coup.
EU: We want control over NI. May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
Some "coup"
Tariff free access to the rest of Europe whilst we're negotiating a free trade deal. The absolute horror of it all.
If they want to give us no strings attached tariff free access to the rest of Europe, without us being subject to their rules, whilst we are negotiating a free trade deal then I absolutely would be the first to sign up for that.
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is a piece of U.K. legislation. Breaching the Withdrawal Agreement necessarily involves breaching a piece of U.K. legislation.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
The Act has the Cash paragraph, so in terms of domestic law the presumed legislation may well be kosher. That doesn't apply internationally however.
Latest claptrap from Hancock this morning - “problems with test and trace are caused by 25% being given to people who aren’t eligible”. How would he come up with such a figure. Unless people are rocking up for tests, not giving a valid reason, and then being tested anyway.
Actually it’s more like people claiming they have CV symptoms when they haven’t. But how do you put a number on that if people are lying? Given that only 1-2% of tests return positive results anyway? (So you can’t use negative tests as a proxy to get back to the 25% figure).
In reality I suspect there’s a remarkable correlation between the 25% figure and the current capacity shortfall in the system. How convenient! We’ve built the perfect system which happens to have exactly the right capacity if it wasn’t for the (unverifiable) number if people turning up for a test who shouldn’t be!
On the radio on Monday parents were saying their schools were sending whole bubbles for a test if one case came up. This was never the advice - they should isolate, and only if they show symptoms should they get a test. I am not sure how the 25 % number has come about, but it would not be a surprise if this is happening.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
Considering these people were repeatedly and unceremoniously rejected by the electorate, I wouldn't.
How many and who where rejected by the electorate? Not May for starters
Actually, that does not surprise me. Trump may be trashing and polarising America and acting like a complete a*se, but he has not started any wars or military expeditions.
In that respect, he is probably one of the most "peaceable" Presidents of recent years...
Good point.
I suspect the reason people really dislike Trump is he is an isolationist and not a globalist. He is no fan of international organisations, and that's often not great.
The bone I really have with the man is Russia. He has a real weak spot there. He tolerates their aggression and misdeeds far more than he should. Putin gets far to easy a ride from him.
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is a piece of U.K. legislation. Breaching the Withdrawal Agreement necessarily involves breaching a piece of U.K. legislation.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
The Act has the Cash paragraph, so in terms of domestic law the presumed legislation may well be kosher. That doesn't apply internationally however.
Excellent header Cyclefree. Spot on in every respect.
What @DavidL fails to recognise when he says people are getting hysterical is that this is not just a case of a Government pushing the boundaries to see if they can get away with something. They did that last year in the proroguing and although I think they were wrong, they could reasonably claim the law was not clear and when told it was illegal they at least backed down.
In this instance they are going into this course of action not only knowing it is, beyond any doubt, illegal but also proclaiming loudly that they intend to break the law. It is not hysterical in any way to say that a Government that both willingly and unashamedly breaks the law and announces in advance that it is doing so is unfit to govern.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
It was not a coup.
EU: We want control over NI. May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
Some "coup"
No, because it was a backstop, specifically designed to give both parties a strong incentive to agree a deal. The EU wouldn't have wanted it to persist because it would give the UK full access to the Single Market without having to pay anything and with only limited level-playing-field provisions, and the UK wouldn't have wanted it to persist for the reason you give. There is absolutely no doubt that it was a better solution than Boris's - not perfect, but better - for the reasons which the government belatedly now seems to have got round to trying to understand.
Just popping in briefly to say that I view the breakage of international law by our politicians very differently to that of UK law, and I take a dim view of lawyers trying to pretend they are somehow equivalent.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is a piece of U.K. legislation. Breaching the Withdrawal Agreement necessarily involves breaching a piece of U.K. legislation.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
The Act has the Cash paragraph, so in terms of domestic law the presumed legislation may well be kosher. That doesn't apply internationally however.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
If I was the Government I'd be glad or seeking to ensure they're all "former".
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was in no.10, I would be worried.
If you were in no.10 you'd probably be wittering on about the enemy within
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
It was not a coup.
EU: We want control over NI. May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
Some "coup"
No, because it was a backstop, specifically designed to give both parties a strong incentive to agree a deal. The EU wouldn't have wanted it to persist because it would give the UK full access to the Single Market without having to pay anything and with only limited level-playing-field provisions, and the UK wouldn't have wanted it to persist for the reason you give. There is absolutely no doubt that it was a better solution than Boris's - not perfect, but better - for the reasons which the government belatedly now seems to have got round to trying to understand.
I don't care what the EU would have wanted or not wanted.
What matters is the UK. What the UK wants or doesn't want and the UK having the power to determine that democratically.
If you can not change the law at an election then you have ceased to be a democracy. That is why international law is subordinate to domestic law.
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!
Dead rent boy might just do it, but even then..
'As the great Catullus once wrote blah, blah, blah'
As I understand it the key features of Covid-19 that make it difficult to control are that the half of cases which are asymptomatic are still infectious, and even those cases that develop symptoms are infectious for a day or two before the onset of symptoms.
Consequently, to identify those people who are infectious, so that they can be isolated and the chain of transmission broken, it is necessary to test people who are asymptomatic contacts of a known case. Ideally, in a test and trace system that was working quickly and effectively to break transmission, a large majority of people would be tested who did not have symptoms.
This morning the Health Secretary of England has said that testing is only for people with symptoms.
We're back to rationing of testing because the epidemic has defeated our half-arsed attempts to contain it. Rationed testing of people only with symptoms is only able to prevent about one quarter of the spread of the virus. It's woefully short of the proactive test and trace that we need to keep the virus under control.
There are now both current governmental lawyers, resigned governmental lawyers, and current and former civil servants, as well as recently retired Tory grandees like Theresa May and today's "recent former cabinet minister" , all anonymously briefing against the government via twitter. If I was int no.10, I would be worried.
If you were in no.10 you'd probably be wittering on about the enemy within
Both Harold Wilson and Thatcher probably had less reason to do so than Boris Johnson and most importantly Cummings do now. Much of it is of his own making, though.
Actually, that does not surprise me. Trump may be trashing and polarising America and acting like a complete a*se, but he has not started any wars or military expeditions.
In that respect, he is probably one of the most "peaceable" Presidents of recent years...
Good point.
I suspect the reason people really dislike Trump is he is an isolationist and not a globalist. He is no fan of international organisations, and that's often not great.
The bone I really have with the man is Russia. He has a real weak spot there. He tolerates their aggression and misdeeds far more than he should. Putin gets far to easy a ride from him.
Contrarian, I really do not agree with most of your posts, but I think you have that spot on there with both statements.
May's backstop would have avoided anything like that as a possibility.
Yep. There was a very good reason why she insisted on that approach rather than the EU's original proposal which is what Boris went back to. As was noted at the time, it was a quite a coup for the British negotiators. All thrown away in the short-term interests of the career of Boris Johnson.
It was not a coup.
EU: We want control over NI. May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
Some "coup"
No, because it was a backstop, specifically designed to give both parties a strong incentive to agree a deal. The EU wouldn't have wanted it to persist because it would give the UK full access to the Single Market without having to pay anything and with only limited level-playing-field provisions, and the UK wouldn't have wanted it to persist for the reason you give. There is absolutely no doubt that it was a better solution than Boris's - not perfect, but better - for the reasons which the government belatedly now seems to have got round to trying to understand.
This is an honest question - do you think the trade negotiations would have gone differently with May's deal?
Comments
Just as in the last American presidential election the common sense option of them both losing was not available.
An option now exists of a party led by someone sane and lawlike in behaviour who all of a sudden is committed to Brexit and getting it done. The problem is that SKS didn't say or act in that way when it was important to do so, neither did the party get rid of an unelectable leader when it mattered.
Labour failed to offer a centrist alternative when they needed to, and are offering one now when it is of no use. it is a major failure.
Especially when it comes to the EU: one of my principle frustrations with the organisation came from the fact that everyone else always seemed to ignore it more or less at will, while we bent over backwards to follow it in both letter and spirit (I am in particular thinking about financial services regulations here, but there are plenty of other examples).
The first 60 million votes for both Trump and Biden won't matter a jot in the final analysis of WH2020 though.
If it is because Parliament is responding to an external shock that makes it reasonable, necessary and a short term delay then yes it is.
I was asking if Parliament voting to suspend elections permanently was “democracy”. We’re not discussing the supremacy of Parliament.
to paraphrase.....'we cannot decide whether Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist based on the evidence about the matter'
What are we going on then, your prejudice?
Gordon Brown is a former Cabinet minister, so is Dominic Grieve.
We were always sovereign.
The government is in the business of avoiding a bad treaty.
There’s your evidence on the matter.
I repeat that you clearly are a moron.
The social contract requires everyone to comply.
The issue remains BoZo and chums don't comply, and they boast about it.
It will be bad if everyone follows them, but to deny that as a possibility is unrealistic, and to be uncritical of them for doing so would be negligent.
Lord Frost: you are not negotiating in good faith as you undertook, you need to compromise more. If not we will walk away and there will be no deal.
Barnier: Whatever, we will rely upon the undertakings that you gave in the WA.
Lord Frost: You shouldn't assume that you will be able to rely upon them indefinitely when there has been no genuine attempt to agree.
(noise off) Lewis: see?
https://twitter.com/JustinWelby/status/1303613679901061121?s=20
Enjoy. Obviously you wont read that, because you’re a moron.
The Government signed it, when they were told not to.
What they are in the business of is ignoring laws they don't like.
That's bad for everyone.
You simply cannot pick and choose which laws you choose to follow. Or, rather, if you do, don’t be surprised, if others do the same.
No, must do better in that second term, Donald. The base expects.
Nope.
Honestly the sheer closed mindedness of the left on here really is something to behold.
Actually it’s more like people claiming they have CV symptoms when they haven’t. But how do you put a number on that if people are lying? Given that only 1-2% of tests return positive results anyway? (So you can’t use negative tests as a proxy to get back to the 25% figure).
In reality I suspect there’s a remarkable correlation between the 25% figure and the current capacity shortfall in the system. How convenient! We’ve built the perfect system which happens to have exactly the right capacity if it wasn’t for the (unverifiable) number if people turning up for a test who shouldn’t be!
I’ve presented you plenty of evidence of Donald Trump’s racism, that many people across the political spectrum, not just “the left”, happily recognise, but you’re too stupid, bigoted, or immature to accept it because it doesn’t fit your culture war agenda.
Whatever, you’re wrong and that’s all that matters.
If Parliament changes the law no.
Parliament can change the law.
The interesting thing is the suggestion that the EU 'threatened' to impose full checks on foods going to NI from the UK in the event of no deal. What this shows is how completely out with the fairies the government is. They don't seem to understand that no deal means no deal. If there's no deal, then the UK becomes a third country from the EU's point of view (without even the limited recognition of standards which Australia has). Thus by definition the EU won't recognise UK standards and by EU law will have to impose the legally-binding checks which apply to foodstuffs coming into the EU, and therefore (under Boris' border-in-the-Irish-Sea deal), into NI.
There's no threat, it's the inevitable and legally unavoidable consequence of No Deal. The EU doesn't have any legal basis not to impose all these checks, in the event of no deal.
It really isn't complicated.
You are trying to keep repeating questions about removing one of those vital steps - us voting. Of course if we stop voting then its no longer democracy: free and fair elections are key to democracy. If elections stop being free and fair then Parliament would no longer be a democracy.
Maybe you should try asking questions that do not involve stopping elections?
Surely how people 'do' is the acid test surely, not clumsy statements that were hedged with other comments.
The government has, by its actions, lost the moral authority to make this point. People will feel that they can make their own judgments, follow their own “instincts”, do what is right for them and their families and the government has by its own actions blessed that approach, whatever it may say.
“Do as I say not as I do” does not work on anyone over the age of 5.
That is why that Thatcher quote is so apposite: rule-breaking by government can lead to the loss of life. This government is being utterly cavalier with people’s lives - here and in Northern Ireland.
It is shameful but not unexpected from a Boris Johnson regime. What is really shameful and depressing is how so many people who one should have thought would have understood the dangers of such an approach are bending over backwards to justify it, minimise it, claim that it does not matter or blame others for what the government has freely chosen to do.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1303623329794973696
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1303623996005666816
1740: Britannia rules the waves.
2020: Britannia waives the rules.
In that respect, he is probably one of the most "peaceable" Presidents of recent years...
EU: We want control over NI.
May: That's unacceptable! Have control over the whole of the United Kingdom instead.
Some "coup"
I suspect the reason people really dislike Trump is he is an isolationist and not a globalist. He is no fan of international organisations, and that's often not great.
The bone I really have with the man is Russia. He has a real weak spot there. He tolerates their aggression and misdeeds far more than he should. Putin gets far to easy a ride from him.
I thought you were keen on the law?
What @DavidL fails to recognise when he says people are getting hysterical is that this is not just a case of a Government pushing the boundaries to see if they can get away with something. They did that last year in the proroguing and although I think they were wrong, they could reasonably claim the law was not clear and when told it was illegal they at least backed down.
In this instance they are going into this course of action not only knowing it is, beyond any doubt, illegal but also proclaiming loudly that they intend to break the law. It is not hysterical in any way to say that a Government that both willingly and unashamedly breaks the law and announces in advance that it is doing so is unfit to govern.
You are convincing nobody.
Your credibility is in tatters Philip.
What matters is the UK. What the UK wants or doesn't want and the UK having the power to determine that democratically.
If you can not change the law at an election then you have ceased to be a democracy. That is why international law is subordinate to domestic law.
'As the great Catullus once wrote blah, blah, blah'
Consequently, to identify those people who are infectious, so that they can be isolated and the chain of transmission broken, it is necessary to test people who are asymptomatic contacts of a known case. Ideally, in a test and trace system that was working quickly and effectively to break transmission, a large majority of people would be tested who did not have symptoms.
This morning the Health Secretary of England has said that testing is only for people with symptoms.
We're back to rationing of testing because the epidemic has defeated our half-arsed attempts to contain it. Rationed testing of people only with symptoms is only able to prevent about one quarter of the spread of the virus. It's woefully short of the proactive test and trace that we need to keep the virus under control.
The government has failed.