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
And suspending the Whip (in a limited and specific way)
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 am sure there are former Serbian and Croatian war criminals now residing in jail in Scheveningen who would love that to be the case. But it is not.
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.
Krastev & Holmes identify the common thread between Obama and Trump as being the US's shift away from intervention toward isolation. Meanwhile there is a geo-political case for keeping Russia onside regarding the various threats from China.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
I wonder what the EU would have done if, having signed May's WA, she said "that's a good deal as it is, we don't need to do any more"?
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
If you want Johnson gone quickly then act constructively. If you want him to stick around for 4 more years (and maybe you do so you can be even "righter") then please continue to act like an insidious Lefty twat.
Nothing any of us posts here is going to have any bearing on how long the malignant grindylow squats in No. 10.
You busted your red, white and blue bollocks to get Boris as PM so at least have the decency to take responsibility.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
I wonder what the EU would have done if, having signed May's WA, she said "that's a good deal as it is, we don't need to do any more"?
Or what May would have done if the EU had said that?
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
The voters saw through May's incompetence and incoherence.
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
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.
Well it's all important. Deeds and words and behaviour all count. And both the personal and political is relevant and can differ. You can be a racist sexist president who does not enact overtly racist sexist policies. Indeed a racist sexist president would find it very difficult to enact such policies in the USA. A bill to stop blacks benefiting from a growing economy? Tough to get that through and onto the statute book. A bill to prohibit women (and especially black women) joining the boards of companies? Ditto. Really challenging for even the racyest sexyest president to get this through Congress. And if he were to try an Executive Order, well ok the Supremes might be quite reactionary now but they do still have their limits. So, you know, we have to make allowances. But the fact remains that Donald Trump has, as you say, been a touch disappointing in getting lots of actual racism and misogyny into either state or federal law. Your withering comparisons to Hitler, Amin, Apartheid etc are therefore merited. But all is not lost for you and the base. There's a thing called a second term.
Fuck business - done Fuck the law - done Coming next, fuck democracy. The Tory trajectory is absolutely clear.
You and Jonathan always go too far with your partisan glee. This is about Boris and his malignant leadership not "Tories" overall. Neither May nor Cameron was like this.
Keep your poundshop Damien McBride stuff on Twitter where it belongs.
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.
Donald Trump was a Birther.
Ergo, Donald Trump is a massive racist.
I don't know why you are so resistant to the evidence of the long history of Trump's racism (including being sued by the Federal government for racist housing practices).
And I also don't think you understand that whilst we understand Trump is racist his racism is a positive for many of the people voting for him.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
The voters saw through May's incompetence and incoherence.
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
1. This government has a cavalier contempt for the rule of law and most aspects of our democratic system - Lewis yesterday, attacks on judicial review, prorogation of parliament, attacks on the Civil Service, dodgy procurement policies and so on. Cyclefree articulates these issues much better than I can.
2. The great British public really couldn't care less, and these things have no, or only a marginal, impact on government popularity.
3. There are still enough (just) Tory MPs to be concerned about this, so regardless of the public disinterest the government is storing up problems for itself, and I wouldn't be surprised if serious fractures emerge soon within the Conservative Party (Big G/HYUFD/Philip T seem to be falling out, for example).
4. While each individual event counts for little, the cumulative effect of all this will lead to government unpopularity as a negative narrative builds. Covid is not about to end any time soon, but the transition period is. Coping with these events would be a struggle for a competent government with a talented Cabinet. For this one, it's just too much.
5. I'd expect Labour to have a significant lead in the polls by March 2021.
6. I reserve the right to change this prediction at any time - events, dear boy.
Interesting shifts on PB. As first ultra-Brexitism and then even more assertiive Boris-ism has got underway, all these posters seem to have either completely or partly decoupled from the government recently :
MaxPB, DavidHerdson, Richard Nabavi, TheScreamingEagles, CasinoRoyale, CarlottaVance and BigG.
Still loyally fighting the government's corner are reliable stalwarts Philip, HYUFD, contrarian and a couple of others.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
Blaming the voters again....
Absolutely I blame the voters. They were the ones who decided on this mess.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
The voters saw through May's incompetence and incoherence.
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
What strikes you as coherent about the government's presentation of this issue?
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?
As a member of the EU we had got ourselves into a situation where there was no way out without a degree of insoluble problem. Brexiteers understandably underplayed it because they wanted to leave. Remainers underplayed it because they never wanted to admit that we had got into something we couldn't coherently get out of but never really been asked (Lisbon treaty, Single Market Act etc) if that's what we wanted. Is anyone truly surprised at the outcome so far?
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
We'd be there by now but she wouldn't have the numbers to get it through.
May's failings weren't technical - they were that she's shit at hearts and minds and couldn't take people with her.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
The voters saw through May's incompetence and incoherence.
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
No, they believed Boris when he said his plan was better than May's plan and that he could stop the agony which is Brexit by actually delivering something.
The problem is that Boris has now discovered that his quick fix plan has a fundamental flaw in it that was pointed out at the time but he ignored (after all, Brexiters don't do experts).
Interesting shifts on PB. As first extreme Brexitism and then even more assertiive Boris-ism has got underway, all these posters seem to have either completely or partly decoupled from the government recently :
MaxPB, DavidHerdson, Richard Nabavi, TheScreamingEagles, CasinoRoyale, CarlottaVance and BigG.
Still loyally fighting the government's corner are reliable stalwarts Philip, HYUFD, contrarian and a couple of others.
I'm not a loyal Tory stalwart, I'm a true believer in what I am writing.
This time two years ago I was 100% vehemently opposing Theresa May.
My insistence that Parliament must set our laws didn't start yesterday, it is what I have been writing for years.
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.
That's ol' Donald, willing to see the good in everyone, including the racists and Nazis of Charlottesville.
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.
Donald Trump was a Birther.
Ergo, Donald Trump is a massive racist.
I don't know why you are so resistant to the evidence of the long history of Trump's racism (including being sued by the Federal government for racist housing practices).
And I also don't think you understand that whilst we understand Trump is racist his racism is a positive for many of the people voting for him.
Yes, racism is certainly central to his appeal. He articulates it as openly as he dares and thereby delights his core support which is frustrated by the lack of support and encouragement such views receive from more civilised and responsible political leaders. I understand this, and much else about Trump, because I discuss this and much else besides with a fanatically pro-Trump friend in Florida. He's an expat Brit who dislikes our liberal and democratic ways. I am by no means the only one on this site who understands Trump's appeal but of course understanding it does not mean approving of it.
Incidentally, my friend is certain Trump will hold Florida. I think he is right, but I do not expect him to win a second Term.
We'd be there by now but she wouldn't have the numbers to get it through.
May's failings weren't technical - they were that she's shit at hearts and minds and couldn't take people with her.
Yes. She would have been an OK PM if she'd kept her majority and therefore her authority, but she was absolutely hopeless at being PM in a hung parliament. It's hard to think of any major politician temperamentally less suited to that situation. Mind you, even the reincarnation of Harold Wilson would have found it virtually impossible to get that hung parliament to agree to anything.
Interesting shifts on PB. As first extreme Brexitism and then even more assertiive Boris-ism has got underway, all these posters seem to have either completely or partly decoupled from the government recently :
MaxPB, DavidHerdson, Richard Nabavi, TheScreamingEagles, CasinoRoyale, CarlottaVance and BigG.
Still loyally fighting the government's corner are reliable stalwarts Philip, HYUFD, contrarian and a couple of others.
I'm not a loyal Tory stalwart, I'm a true believer in what I am writing.
This time two years ago I was 100% vehemently opposing Theresa May.
My insistence that Parliament must set our laws didn't start yesterday, it is what I have been writing for years.
I suppose a reliable Brexiter stalwart might be a better description, as that seems to be the key faultline for the loyalists.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
Blaming the voters again....
Absolutely I blame the voters. They were the ones who decided on this mess.
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.
You think Margaret Thatcher’s quote about the importance of the rule of law is a “bit hysterical”?
No, I think that describing what the government is doing in this bill, which is the power to regulate intra UK trade in the future, as being inconsistent with it is hysterical.
I could have added this to the header - but you know me - didn’t want to make it too long, you’re all such busy people - so enjoy:
Margaret Thatcher: "You cannot have freedom without the rule of law. If you don't have it, what you tend to get is corruption and that is death to freedom, it's death to truth, it's death to honour, it's death to democracy."
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.
Yes, hence their barely concealed joy (especially Varadkar's) at Boris's deal. The backstop was far from ideal from the EU's point of view, and the fact that they agreed to it is a credit to May's negotiating skills. It must have been a great relief to them when Boris agreed to bin it and instead throw NI under the bus. The amazing thing is that he managed to convince his own party that this was a better deal!
The rule of law to me is whatever Parliament says it is. "International law" is not the rule of law to me.
This seems to me to be a modern day Roundhead v Cavalier issue. To many here it seems that international law has taken on the role of the monarch for the Cavaliers - it is absolute and unquestionable. For me Parliament, as elected by the people, is supreme.
I have to say that this restriction that has been put on the number of posts that you can see is vexing and taking away much of the enjoyment of the site. As someone who pops in and out whilst dealing with work related matters it makes it much more difficult to see where the conversation has gone, what has already been said etc. Does anyone know a way around it?
Have to say I have not been paying enough attention to Ohio. Never thought it would be a realistic target for the Dems.
I don't think it is, unless they've already won. Even with Biden on +7 or so nationally the better pollsters have been giving it to Trump, it's only the shitty ones that are giving it to Biden. I know some of them are both shitty and usually GOP-leaning, but that's not enough to believe them over a normal pollster.
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
The voters saw through May's incompetence and incoherence.
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
No, they believed Boris when he said his plan was better than May's plan and that he could stop the agony which is Brexit by actually delivering something.
The problem is that Boris has now discovered that his quick fix plan has a fundamental flaw in it that was pointed out at the time but he ignored (after all, Brexiters don't do experts).
The Boris WA is better, assuming you don't give a shit about NI (which most don't). The May deal had the backstop for the whole country, the Boris one has it for NI with the ability to replace it once a trade deal is in place.
As it stands there's nothing to be gained by breaking our word on the WA. I really haven't got a clue why the government are taking this stance, a deal was in sight, now it won't happen. The EU were preparing the ground for a climbdown on dynamic alignment because the government has the facts on its side, we don't subsidise industry as much and we tend to win arbitration cases at the ECJ when it comes to that.
It's frustrating that Boris and the c*** are playing odd games when the EU were ready to back down.
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
I have to say that this restriction that has been put on the number of posts that you can see is vexing and taking away much of the enjoyment of the site. As someone who pops in and out whilst dealing with work related matters it makes it much more difficult to see where the conversation has gone, what has already been said etc. Does anyone know a way around it?
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.
You think Margaret Thatcher’s quote about the importance of the rule of law is a “bit hysterical”?
No, I think that describing what the government is doing in this bill, which is the power to regulate intra UK trade in the future, as being inconsistent with it is hysterical.
That is exactly what Brandon Lewis said the government was doing.
I have to say that this restriction that has been put on the number of posts that you can see is vexing and taking away much of the enjoyment of the site. As someone who pops in and out whilst dealing with work related matters it makes it much more difficult to see where the conversation has gone, what has already been said etc. Does anyone know a way around it?
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.
Donald Trump was a Birther.
Ergo, Donald Trump is a massive racist.
I don't know why you are so resistant to the evidence of the long history of Trump's racism (including being sued by the Federal government for racist housing practices).
And I also don't think you understand that whilst we understand Trump is racist his racism is a positive for many of the people voting for him.
Yes, racism is certainly central to his appeal. He articulates it as openly as he dares and thereby delights his core support which is frustrated by the lack of support and encouragement such views receive from more civilised and responsible political leaders. I understand this, and much else about Trump, because I discuss this and much else besides with a fanatically pro-Trump friend in Florida. He's an expat Brit who dislikes our liberal and democratic ways. I am by no means the only one on this site who understands Trump's appeal but of course understanding it does not mean approving of it.
Incidentally, my friend is certain Trump will hold Florida. I think he is right, but I do not expect him to win a second Term.
That's also my forecast and my betting position. Clear Biden win but Trump holds Florida.
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?
With May's deal and May in charge of the negotiation and with a parliamentary majority, yes, certainly. We'd be there by now. This disaster all stems from the 2017 election, where voters having chosen to leave the EU took away the government's ability to do so coherently.
The voters saw through May's incompetence and incoherence.
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
No, they believed Boris when he said his plan was better than May's plan and that he could stop the agony which is Brexit by actually delivering something.
The problem is that Boris has now discovered that his quick fix plan has a fundamental flaw in it that was pointed out at the time but he ignored (after all, Brexiters don't do experts).
The Boris WA is better, assuming you don't give a shit about NI (which most don't). The May deal had the backstop for the whole country, the Boris one has it for NI with the ability to replace it once a trade deal is in place.
As it stands there's nothing to be gained by breaking our word on the WA. I really haven't got a clue why the government are taking this stance, a deal was in sight, now it won't happen. The EU were preparing the ground for a climbdown on dynamic alignment because the government has the facts on its side, we don't subsidise industry as much and we tend to win arbitration cases at the ECJ when it comes to that.
It's frustrating that Boris and the c*** are playing odd games when the EU were ready to back down.
Not if the planned end game was always going to be No Deal.
Although I suspect No Deal is going to be very different from how Boris and Cummings imagined that it would look like.
I have to say that this restriction that has been put on the number of posts that you can see is vexing and taking away much of the enjoyment of the site. As someone who pops in and out whilst dealing with work related matters it makes it much more difficult to see where the conversation has gone, what has already been said etc. Does anyone know a way around it?
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
You clearly refuse to understand what it is that the U.K. Act passed by this Parliament says.
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
Have to say I have not been paying enough attention to Ohio. Never thought it would be a realistic target for the Dems.
I don't think it is, unless they've already won. Even with Biden on +7 or so nationally the better pollsters have been giving it to Trump, it's only the shitty ones that are giving it to Biden. I know some of them are both shitty and usually GOP-leaning, but that's not enough to believe them over a normal pollster.
That was my general view but there are two things that give me pause: 1) Trump demanding American boycott Goodyear tyres (headquarters Akron, Ohio) might well have nuged a few people into an anti-Trump frame of mind But much more importnatly 2) There is a MASSIVE corruption scandal going on engulfing the Ohio Republican party. Sixty Million in bribes to pass a 1.3 Billion dollar bailout. It is just jaw dropping and it must be having an effect.
I have to say that this restriction that has been put on the number of posts that you can see is vexing and taking away much of the enjoyment of the site. As someone who pops in and out whilst dealing with work related matters it makes it much more difficult to see where the conversation has gone, what has already been said etc. Does anyone know a way around it?
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.
They are not saying that. What they are saying is that as a sovereign country they have the right to regulate intra UK trade should they choose to do so in the future. There would be consequences for NI in doing so because clearly the EU would then not be bound by the additional rights given to NI in the WA either. But they have the right to do so should they so choose.
The idea that we are bound by every treaty we have ever signed in perpetuity by the rule of law is absurd. Unless you have submitted to a superior jurisdiction, such as the EU has with the CJEU, any country is always free to break agreements if it thinks fit and is willing to live with the consequences.
The use of "illegal" in this context is misleading. If these powers were ever exercised they would be a breach of an agreement. Such a breach is not an illegal act if Parliament has authorised it because that's what Parliamentary sovereignty means. We are no longer subject to the supravening jurisdiction of the CJEU who have the right to overrule Parliament as they did in the Factortame case.
Is this a good tactic? I would say no. The price of this flexibility is a lot of trust not only with the EU but with future prospective partners. The price is too high and I wouldn't have paid it. OTOH it shows to me that the government is a little more desperate for a deal than they are willing to admit which is probably a good thing.
Have to say I have not been paying enough attention to Ohio. Never thought it would be a realistic target for the Dems.
Rasmussen +4 in Ohio ain't good news for Trump for sure.
Not just Ras showing it close, plenty of other neck and neck polls including a Zogby 2 point Biden lead.
Not sure what I make of it all.
I think it's a Trump hold. If you want a state that's comparable to the 1992 General Election where a good deficit is being apparently overcome but ultimately won't be enough, Ohio is your state.
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.
Donald Trump was a Birther.
Ergo, Donald Trump is a massive racist.
I don't know why you are so resistant to the evidence of the long history of Trump's racism (including being sued by the Federal government for racist housing practices).
And I also don't think you understand that whilst we understand Trump is racist his racism is a positive for many of the people voting for him.
Yes. Set aside all else - and there's a ton of it - his leading role in Birther is incontrovertible evidence of a man who validates and exploits racism. Such people are commonly known as racists. Anyone who defends Donald Trump on this charge - unless they are being paid to do so in a professional capacity - is supplying equally compelling evidence supporting the same charge against themselves.
So to add to this crazy world Donald Trump is nominated for the 2021 Nobel peace prize
Strangely, specifically because of Korea, in some way I think he would be a more worthy recipient than Henry Kissinger, despite all his contributions to the conflagrations at home, Kissinger-like support for dictators, and general planet-burning.
Chances now up to 74% on 538, so a (slight) further uptick.
Yup, so 2 new data points: Ipsos on +12 (last poll was +5 or +7 right after the GOP convention, but I think without the likely voter screen) and a monster +15 from USC/Dornsife, who have a panel on a 2-week cycle and are just getting back into the Biden-loving half...
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
You clearly refuse to understand what it is that the U.K. Act passed by this Parliament says.
I’ve tried to explain but, hey ho.
Bye for now.
I do understand - and the UK Act both contained the Cash clause and more importantly it can be amended over or overriden domestically within the law.
The rule of law for me is that Parliament is supreme. If "Parliamentary law" and "international law" are in conflict, then for me the "rule of law" goes with Parliament. That is still following the rule of law.
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.
They are not saying that. What they are saying is that as a sovereign country they have the right to regulate intra UK trade should they choose to do so in the future. There would be consequences for NI in doing so because clearly the EU would then not be bound by the additional rights given to NI in the WA either. But they have the right to do so should they so choose.
The idea that we are bound by every treaty we have ever signed in perpetuity by the rule of law is absurd. Unless you have submitted to a superior jurisdiction, such as the EU has with the CJEU, any country is always free to break agreements if it thinks fit and is willing to live with the consequences.
The use of "illegal" in this context is misleading. If these powers were ever exercised they would be a breach of an agreement. Such a breach is not an illegal act if Parliament has authorised it because that's what Parliamentary sovereignty means. We are no longer subject to the supravening jurisdiction of the CJEU who have the right to overrule Parliament as they did in the Factortame case.
Is this a good tactic? I would say no. The price of this flexibility is a lot of trust not only with the EU but with future prospective partners. The price is too high and I wouldn't have paid it. OTOH it shows to me that the government is a little more desperate for a deal than they are willing to admit which is probably a good thing.
UK sovereignty in Northern Ireland is contingent, not absolute.
Very good article @Cyclefree . I am in no doubt that Margaret Thatcher would have no time for the uber lightweight that is Boris Johnson and most of his cabinet. The sad thing is that most of the thickos on the right wing of the Conservative Party (which is very right wing indeed now) believe they are somehow carrying on her legacy. The reality is that they are trashing it far better than any Labour government ever could have. She must be spinning in her grave.
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
Anybody would think you are Boris fanboy
I am.
But do not put the cart before the horse, I was on this website saying the exact same thing two years ago when I was opposing Theresa May's government and Theresa May's backstop and Boris was just a backbencher. I am entirely consistent.
I am a fan of Boris, because I am a fan of what he is doing - I am not a fan of what Boris is doing because I am a fan of Boris.
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?
As a member of the EU we had got ourselves into a situation where there was no way out without a degree of insoluble problem. Brexiteers understandably underplayed it because they wanted to leave. Remainers underplayed it because they never wanted to admit that we had got into something we couldn't coherently get out of but never really been asked (Lisbon treaty, Single Market Act etc) if that's what we wanted. Is anyone truly surprised at the outcome so far?
Yes, I think this is a fair assessment, and you can add the consequences of the Good Friday Agreement to that list.
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
Anybody would think you are Boris fanboy
I am.
But do not put the cart before the horse, I was on this website saying the exact same thing two years ago when I was opposing Theresa May's government and Theresa May's backstop and Boris was just a backbencher. I am entirely consistent.
I am a fan of Boris, because I am a fan of what he is doing - I am not a fan of what Boris is doing because I am a fan of Boris.
The last bit is a complete nonsense. Johnson could do anything and you would support it.
We know that because you support him literally breaking the law.
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.
They are not saying that. What they are saying is that as a sovereign country they have the right to regulate intra UK trade should they choose to do so in the future. There would be consequences for NI in doing so because clearly the EU would then not be bound by the additional rights given to NI in the WA either. But they have the right to do so should they so choose.
The idea that we are bound by every treaty we have ever signed in perpetuity by the rule of law is absurd. Unless you have submitted to a superior jurisdiction, such as the EU has with the CJEU, any country is always free to break agreements if it thinks fit and is willing to live with the consequences.
The use of "illegal" in this context is misleading. If these powers were ever exercised they would be a breach of an agreement. Such a breach is not an illegal act if Parliament has authorised it because that's what Parliamentary sovereignty means. We are no longer subject to the supravening jurisdiction of the CJEU who have the right to overrule Parliament as they did in the Factortame case.
Is this a good tactic? I would say no. The price of this flexibility is a lot of trust not only with the EU but with future prospective partners. The price is too high and I wouldn't have paid it. OTOH it shows to me that the government is a little more desperate for a deal than they are willing to admit which is probably a good thing.
UK sovereignty in Northern Ireland is contingent, not absolute.
It is contingent upon the consent of the majority of the population of Northern Ireland. If they elected to join the republic in the future this whole issue becomes rather moot. Until they do our sovereignty is absolute.
LOL. To be announced on Oct 9th. Then the vaccine a week later. Then some great job news and a stock market record high on Nov 2nd. Then on Nov 3rd ... Biden wins.
If the law as set by the MPs in Parliament that we have elected and if the law as according to "international law" are in conflict then what does "the rule of law" mean?
Does it mean following the law as set by MPs elected to Parliament - or does it mean following "international law".
As a sovereign country laws set by MPs we elect must be supreme.
Chances now up to 74% on 538, so a (slight) further uptick.
Yup, so 2 new data points: Ipsos on +12 (last poll was +5 or +7 right after the GOP convention, but I think without the likely voter screen) and a monster +15 from USC/Dornsife, who have a panel on a 2-week cycle and are just getting back into the Biden-loving half...
LOL, yes that USC poll is a wash really isn't it? As you say, it seems to run on a fortnightly cycle with one half of the cohort being Biden lovers and the other half being more mixed.
It essentially cancels back to Biden +9ish as far as I can see.
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.
The government has failed.
I believe Hancock was suggesting that people who self-refer for a test should only do so if they have symptoms.
People may still be asked to take a test by Track and Trace even if they don't have symptoms.
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.
As I understand it, the plan is to change the UK law to avoid having to break it (which is totally fine by me), which in itself breaks international law (which is less fine, and clearly not ideal, but I can absolutely live with it if we get away with it).
Precisely.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
Anybody would think you are Boris fanboy
I am.
But do not put the cart before the horse, I was on this website saying the exact same thing two years ago when I was opposing Theresa May's government and Theresa May's backstop and Boris was just a backbencher. I am entirely consistent.
I am a fan of Boris, because I am a fan of what he is doing - I am not a fan of what Boris is doing because I am a fan of Boris.
The last bit is a complete nonsense. Johnson could do anything and you would support it.
We know that because you support him literally breaking the law.
I do not support him "breaking the law", I support him changing the law. If the law is changed then the law is not broken - what part of that are you struggling to understand?
I do not respect "international law" and never have. I respect domestic law and I want him to change that.
I have opposed Boris where his politics diverges from mine. I opposed him voting for Theresa May's deal at the Third Meaningful Vote for instance. They do not here.
The idea that we are bound by every treaty we have ever signed in perpetuity by the rule of law is absurd. ...
Perpetuity is a long time, but the EU might have had a reasonable expectation that we would honour our obligations for more than nine months.
That is an entirely fair argument, but its also about politics. If you're accepting the principle that the UK Government is sovereign and can change the law, then this all boils down to just politics - and all is fair in that.
Comments
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
Thankfully they saw in Boris someone who could do so coherently - and that is precisely what he is doing today.
https://www.captiongenerator.com/1959302/Boris-Johnson-discovers-hes-breaking-the-law
Keep your poundshop Damien McBride stuff on Twitter where it belongs.
Ergo, Donald Trump is a massive racist.
I don't know why you are so resistant to the evidence of the long history of Trump's racism (including being sued by the Federal government for racist housing practices).
And I also don't think you understand that whilst we understand Trump is racist his racism is a positive for many of the people voting for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2a2fAEQaGo
1. This government has a cavalier contempt for the rule of law and most aspects of our democratic system - Lewis yesterday, attacks on judicial review, prorogation of parliament, attacks on the Civil Service, dodgy procurement policies and so on. Cyclefree articulates these issues much better than I can.
2. The great British public really couldn't care less, and these things have no, or only a marginal, impact on government popularity.
3. There are still enough (just) Tory MPs to be concerned about this, so regardless of the public disinterest the government is storing up problems for itself, and I wouldn't be surprised if serious fractures emerge soon within the Conservative Party (Big G/HYUFD/Philip T seem to be falling out, for example).
4. While each individual event counts for little, the cumulative effect of all this will lead to government unpopularity as a negative narrative builds. Covid is not about to end any time soon, but the transition period is. Coping with these events would be a struggle for a competent government with a talented Cabinet. For this one, it's just too much.
5. I'd expect Labour to have a significant lead in the polls by March 2021.
6. I reserve the right to change this prediction at any time - events, dear boy.
MaxPB, DavidHerdson, Richard Nabavi, TheScreamingEagles, CasinoRoyale, CarlottaVance and BigG.
Still loyally fighting the government's corner are reliable stalwarts Philip, HYUFD, contrarian and a couple of others.
May's failings weren't technical - they were that she's shit at hearts and minds and couldn't take people with her.
The problem is that Boris has now discovered that his quick fix plan has a fundamental flaw in it that was pointed out at the time but he ignored (after all, Brexiters don't do experts).
https://twitter.com/Jess_Sargeant/status/1303627009185271809?s=20
This time two years ago I was 100% vehemently opposing Theresa May.
My insistence that Parliament must set our laws didn't start yesterday, it is what I have been writing for years.
Incidentally, my friend is certain Trump will hold Florida. I think he is right, but I do not expect him to win a second Term.
Easily done.
I could have added this to the header - but you know me - didn’t want to make it too long, you’re all such busy people - so enjoy:
Margaret Thatcher: "You cannot have freedom without the rule of law. If you don't have it, what you tend to get is corruption and that is death to freedom, it's death to truth, it's death to honour, it's death to democracy."
But the whole thing has metastasized far beyond the original poster, there are Q factions and false prophets etc
The rule of law to me is whatever Parliament says it is. "International law" is not the rule of law to me.
This seems to me to be a modern day Roundhead v Cavalier issue. To many here it seems that international law has taken on the role of the monarch for the Cavaliers - it is absolute and unquestionable. For me Parliament, as elected by the people, is supreme.
Not sure what I make of it all.
As it stands there's nothing to be gained by breaking our word on the WA. I really haven't got a clue why the government are taking this stance, a deal was in sight, now it won't happen. The EU were preparing the ground for a climbdown on dynamic alignment because the government has the facts on its side, we don't subsidise industry as much and we tend to win arbitration cases at the ECJ when it comes to that.
It's frustrating that Boris and the c*** are playing odd games when the EU were ready to back down.
Changing UK law rather than breaking it is democratic and following "the rule of law".
Although I suspect No Deal is going to be very different from how Boris and Cummings imagined that it would look like.
I’ve tried to explain but, hey ho.
Bye for now.
Chances now up to 74% on 538, so a (slight) further uptick.
1) Trump demanding American boycott Goodyear tyres (headquarters Akron, Ohio) might well have nuged a few people into an anti-Trump frame of mind
But much more importnatly
2) There is a MASSIVE corruption scandal going on engulfing the Ohio Republican party. Sixty Million in bribes to pass a 1.3 Billion dollar bailout. It is just jaw dropping and it must be having an effect.
The idea that we are bound by every treaty we have ever signed in perpetuity by the rule of law is absurd. Unless you have submitted to a superior jurisdiction, such as the EU has with the CJEU, any country is always free to break agreements if it thinks fit and is willing to live with the consequences.
The use of "illegal" in this context is misleading. If these powers were ever exercised they would be a breach of an agreement. Such a breach is not an illegal act if Parliament has authorised it because that's what Parliamentary sovereignty means. We are no longer subject to the supravening jurisdiction of the CJEU who have the right to overrule Parliament as they did in the Factortame case.
Is this a good tactic? I would say no. The price of this flexibility is a lot of trust not only with the EU but with future prospective partners. The price is too high and I wouldn't have paid it. OTOH it shows to me that the government is a little more desperate for a deal than they are willing to admit which is probably a good thing.
The rule of law for me is that Parliament is supreme. If "Parliamentary law" and "international law" are in conflict, then for me the "rule of law" goes with Parliament. That is still following the rule of law.
But do not put the cart before the horse, I was on this website saying the exact same thing two years ago when I was opposing Theresa May's government and Theresa May's backstop and Boris was just a backbencher. I am entirely consistent.
I am a fan of Boris, because I am a fan of what he is doing - I am not a fan of what Boris is doing because I am a fan of Boris.
Quite where this ends up, I don't know.
We know that because you support him literally breaking the law.
Does it mean following the law as set by MPs elected to Parliament - or does it mean following "international law".
As a sovereign country laws set by MPs we elect must be supreme.
It essentially cancels back to Biden +9ish as far as I can see.
People may still be asked to take a test by Track and Trace even if they don't have symptoms.
I do not respect "international law" and never have. I respect domestic law and I want him to change that.
I have opposed Boris where his politics diverges from mine. I opposed him voting for Theresa May's deal at the Third Meaningful Vote for instance. They do not here.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1303638877488504834?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1303639313087975430?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1303639522459160586?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1303639739183116288?s=20