Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
The view of these peers is that Lewis’ comments about breaking international law and the fact that the bill is unlikely to get legislative consent motions from Holyrood, Stormont or Cardiff Bay will make the Lords feel they are justified in holding it up. The nature of the most controversial changes to the bill, attempting to change the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, means that the government can’t appeal to the Salisbury convention – which means that the unelected house doesn’t hold up or obstruct government manifesto commitments.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
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).
“if we get away with it” - said every crook ever.
Right, but that's what I see as the difference between UK law and international law. I simply don't care about whether we follow international law or not, because I ascribe very little value to the institutions which administer and supposedly uphold it.
International law is upheld by the courts. You ascribe very little value to the courts? Those same courts which uphold the U.K. law you claim to care about?
Don’t you see a bit of a problem here?
They're only upheld by the courts if the UK law says they should be. If the UK law says they shouldn't be, that is a different matter.
That is simply not correct.
Are you suggesting the UK law doesn't say to enforce the international law? That the courts are doing so on their own back?
You do not need a UK law specifically saying that you must obey international law in order to do so.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
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).
“if we get away with it” - said every crook ever.
Right, but that's what I see as the difference between UK law and international law. I simply don't care about whether we follow international law or not, because I ascribe very little value to the institutions which administer and supposedly uphold it.
International law is upheld by the courts. You ascribe very little value to the courts? Those same courts which uphold the U.K. law you claim to care about?
Don’t you see a bit of a problem here?
They're only upheld by the courts if the UK law says they should be. If the UK law says they shouldn't be, that is a different matter.
That is simply not correct.
Are you suggesting the UK law doesn't say to enforce the international law? That the courts are doing so on their own back?
You do not need a UK law specifically saying that you must obey international law in order to do so.
The Withdrawal Agreement, as you've acknowledged, applies in UK law because of the 2020 UK Act implementing it. That is UK law, not international law.
If a further Act now explicitly says that notwithstanding the prior Act that the law is different, then that Act would surely take precedence?
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.
The UK government has the legal right to launch nuclear missiles. That doesn't make their use automatically OK.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
Yesterday my son's 8 year old daughter was told to get a test here in Colwyn Bay and was told the nearest test availability was in Oldham of all places
Wowsers. Johnson hasn't a clue what is happening out there. Doesn't understand the principles never mind the details. So tries to make it all about SKS talking down the heroic system.
It would be pathetic. If it wasn't already priced in.
Yesterday my son's 8 year old daughter was told to get a test here in Colwyn Bay and was told the nearest test availability was in Oldham of all places
So Wales NHS has the same issue
Same thing happened in Scotland. A surge in demand.
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.
Intrinsically the problem is that binding referendums are not very compatible with a representative democracy. They force a divisive dichotomy on a situation that requires consensus building. Scotland is another example.
The colossal missed opportunity post GE2017 was Labour not putting forward an EEA type option, and instead listening to the siren voices of the hardcore remainers. The Corbynites were too thick and the moderates too far up their own arseholes to realise this.
Indeed they voted down Boles's proposal for common market 2.0
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open. There are some marquees as normal but they have open sides and there won't be as many people crammed in.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The course is on a common so it would be very difficult to keep all spectators out anyway.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
Your last sentence explains why it's not bonkers. And that's even without considering the different type of behaviour in a church compared with a pub, and the very different size of building.
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
There is a thread on Twitter about whether this is deliberate from team BoZo, or whether the statement at the despatch box was yet another cock-up.
I think deliberate. They are good at this stuff - messaging to create the vibe of 'stick it to Brussels' and 'bugger those remoaner lawyer types' that they want around Brexit. Won't make one iota of difference to the EU but it does play well to the base domestically. It works. An 80 seat majority tells us that loud and clear.
Such a shame they are not so good at things like running a competent administration and dealing with a pandemic. Cock ups galore there, sadly for all.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
They claim to be checking 20% of returnees to see if they have completed the form. With a £100 fine. Apparently You can't even leave home to walk the dog
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
Pubs and restaurants can theoretically still have 100 or more people in them and their gardens provided they each have tables with only 6 people on them at least 2 metres apart from Monday.
Not even Cathedrals are having that many for services and churches are not having after service coffee at the moment either and only 2 households maximum are allowed per pew at least 2 metres apart
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
Your last sentence explains why it's not bonkers. And that's even without considering the different type of behaviour in a church compared with a pub, and the very different size of building.
Wrong – churches were key vectors in the Italian crisis; mosques look like prime suspects as key vectors here.
Not to mention that pubs are (quite rightly) still open: you can have 100 people in one assuming a maximum of six people arrive together and/or meet anyone else they know there only by accident.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
You cannot go out to work or school or visit public areas. You should not go shopping. If you require help buying groceries, other shopping or picking up medication, you should ask friends or relatives or order a delivery
Blackford: The PM is a liar Speaker: I ask you to withdraw it Blackford: I do not withdraw it Speaker: I accept that you have withdrawn it.
Eh?
The Speaker could have named Blackford - but that would have simply helped the nationalist grievance mongers, so it was probably the least worst option...
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
As in a house party there is no guarantee they will sit in groups of only 6 people at least 2 metres apart
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
Pubs and restaurants can theoretically still have 100 or more people in them and their gardens provided they each have tables with only 6 people on them at least 2 metres apart from Monday.
Not even Cathedrals are having that many for services and churches are not having after service coffee at the moment either and only 2 households maximum are allowed per pew at least 2 metres apart
You accept that you were wrong about the amount of people you can go to the pub with? If even you are confused, what hope any normal citizen?
Blackford: The PM is a liar Speaker: I ask you to withdraw it Blackford: I do not withdraw it Speaker: I accept that you have withdrawn it.
Eh?
The Speaker could have named Blackford - but that would have simply helped the nationalist grievance mongers, so it was probably the least worst option...
Yes it did look like Blackford was goading the Speaker into doing that.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
They claim to be checking 20% of returnees to see if they have completed the form. With a £100 fine. Apparently You can't even leave home to walk the dog
But you CAN leave the home to go shop. Read the guidance I pasted the link to. BTW how are they checking people for a form they don't have? It is a simple thing to have the UK Border Force collect paper forms or check electronic forms. You can't enter the UK without having done so. Yet they do not.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
Unless that football match is 'organised' – writing down a team sheet on a piece of paper should suffice.
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.
"International law" is a misnomer because everyone's framing for this comes from domestic criminal law. It's much more like contract law, where you absolutely can breach a contract, and doing so is not a criminal offence, provided one accepts the penalties that go with breaching the contract.
Businesses have to breach contracts from time to time. It happens, and if the cost of performing the contract would be greater than the cost of breaching it, then breaching is the correct move.
However, if the CEO of a company signs a deal with the company's largest customer, and enthusiastically informs the shareholders that it's a great deal for the company, then less than a year later comes back with the news that he's going to breach the contract because it is too onerous to perform, then the shareholders might want to know what the hell he thought he was playing at.
Well, it's not exactly a misnomer, as contract law is law too. Apart for that quibble, I tend to agree with your characterisation - though of course such agreements between government do also have consequences in criminal law (for example the War Crimes Tribunal).
The other point is that what the government is trying to do is unilaterally modify bits of the contract it recently signed, while claiming that the other obligations under the contract are unaffected.
So it is not just the point that we are showing other countries that in future we can't be expected to abide by our commitments (risking a reputation hard won over centuries), but that we don't even accept the basis on which international agreements operate.
Three takeaways from PMQs this week: 1. Johnson has absolutely no idea what is going on 2. Johnson is not well 3. Johnson is desperate for a culture war That takes me to a fourth takeaway: 4. Johnson is not fit to be Prime Minister
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
You cannot go out to work or school or visit public areas. You should not go shopping. If you require help buying groceries, other shopping or picking up medication, you should ask friends or relatives or order a delivery
"In England, you are allowed to leave your accommodation in exceptional circumstances. This includes such things as:
accessing basic necessities like food and medicines where you cannot arrange for these to be delivered"
Phone rings. Hello, I am checking that you are self-isolating. Yes I am, though I am currently outside going to the shop. I couldn't get a delivery slot and have run out of milk. Oh ok thanks"
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
As in a house party there is no guarantee they will sit in groups of only 6 people at least 2 metres apart
There are no guarantees people will do that at religious services either.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
The public worship and team sports exemptions are odd ones. Why prioritise some leisure activities over others? Why is a football match OK but not an outside group yoga class? Why is a congregation OK but not people at a poetry reading? For that matter why can five groups of five crowd together inside in a pub but not one group of seven spaced out in the park? The new rules don't make sense at all. Plus of course, with schools back anyone with kids will probably be exposed anyway. Whole thing smacks of desperation.
Outside sports appears to be very low risk (what we are doing with indoor gyms open is another matter). However, we have seen time and time again that places of worship are extremely good at acting as idea venue for super spreading events.
But if outside team sports are OK then surely hanging out in the park is OK too (less contact, less sweating or heavy breathing). What about training or group exercise classes? Does my son's U12 football league count? Can the team still train? And if that's OK, why not my daughter's drama class? And why not a kickabout in the park after school? Whole thing is a mess.
Not to mention the nonsense of forcing quarantine on people coming, or returning, from places much safer than the UK right now
1. Its not quarantine. Its self-isolation where you can still leave the house for a whole list of reasons 2. Its not quarantine where other people you live with aren't also quarantined if they didn't travel with you 3. Nobody is being forced. Travellers still not being checked if they have actually completed the form...
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
They claim to be checking 20% of returnees to see if they have completed the form. With a £100 fine. Apparently You can't even leave home to walk the dog
When we returned from Croatia 100% were checked. When we returned from Greece we were not asked whether we had completed the form (same airport). I suppose that some don`t fill it in, but my guess that this is minimal as they don`t want to risk a fine.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
A house party was apparently the source of the recent outbreak in Coupar Angus. The reporting focused on the chicken factory but in fact the workers got infected at the party and then brought it into work.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Can many pubs make it work like this? As we saw during the summer, it seems most went to having as many people as possible standing (outside) pretty quickly.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
As in a house party there is no guarantee they will sit in groups of only 6 people at least 2 metres apart
There are no guarantees people will do that at religious services either.
The Govt declares, on the floor of the House of Commons, “we are breaking the law”.
Philip, on here, declares that they are wrong, do not know what they are talking about, and therefore feels free to continue his support of their actions.
You would have thought that if the Govt was not actually breaking the law, or at least if it was open to debate, they might at least have tried to argue along those lines...
It’s one thing to take pride in breaking the law, a special thing to do so when you aren’t actually doing so!
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
It can't dissemble.
If the government intends to overwrite the law they need to do so explicitly. They can't dissemble or play it down because if they did the courts would strike down any new law because the WA would take precedence. The new law must explicitly overwrite the WA and if it does that then dissembling becomes rather impossible.
Philip, I think a fair few people are misunderstanding you. Can we nail this down a bit more?
The government sets policy for the UK, with the consent of Parliament, which is sovereign. No external body can force the UK to adopt any law or policy without Parliamentary consent (leaving aside prerogative powers and so on). If the UK Parliament passes a law, it is the law, end of story.
The government can enter into treaties - agreements - with other nations or international bodies. When people talk about "international law", it is these agreements that they are referring to. Such treaties cannot force a change in UK law or policy, for the reasons given above - Parliamentary sovereignty rules. If the government agrees a treaty, and Parliament subsequently passes a law which conflicts with the treaty, then the law passed by Parliament takes priority.
There is, therefore, no sense in which "international law" can override Parliament. Agreements with other nations are just that - agreements. They are, in principle, not much different from contracts between firms. In much the same way, the existence of a contract with a customer or supplier cannot compel a company's board or executive to behave in any particular way ("specific performance", in the jargon). Do we agree?
This leaves us with a hopefully much simpler conversation about the costs and benefits of making and breaking agreements, without the tedious armchair constitutional scholarship. This should be seen as a political question: was it right to agree the WA? Is it right, having made the agreement, to break it?
Yesterday my son's 8 year old daughter was told to get a test here in Colwyn Bay and was told the nearest test availability was in Oldham of all places
So Wales NHS has the same issue
The bookable tests are a UK wide system, UK Gov controlled not local health board as I understand it.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Why?
They'll be on separate tables.
The plan is not to stop people gathering indoors, it is to try and contain the virus. That doesn't mean zero risk it means getting the balance right on risk.
BTW in all the excitement, we’ve missed the fact that, just like in March the government - while saying that no-one can meet in groups of more than 6 from Monday - is allowing 3,500 people to go to Doncaster races this weekend.
What the actual fuck? An emergency restriction on gatherings. On Monday. So that a race weekend can take place.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
I think it is clear from the Government's actions that they think transmission in private houses is the main vector. As they've been criticised for complicated and unclear directions, they've tried to apply a simple blanket restriction with exceptions rather than specific instructions for different scenarios.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The vector is house parties? How is a large gathering of people is a large private house different to a large gathering of people in a pub? The exceptions you mention utterly negate the blanket restrictions.
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
The rule is quite clear, even if you think it is daft. Don't forget that the government also has to take into account the benefit of each scenario as well as the risk. You might be prepared to take a higher risk if there is an economic or social benefit. Attending school obviously has a higher benefit than a kickabout in the park.
A pub is in theory a controlled environment and can be shut down. It is definitely not the same as a house party.
It is easy to pick holes in any 'rules' though. What would your solution be? No rules at all?
The Govt declares, on the floor of the House of Commons, “we are breaking the law”.
Philip, on here, declares that they are wrong, do not know what they are talking about, and therefore feels free to continue his support of their actions.
You would have thought that if the Govt was not actually breaking the law, or at least if it was open to debate, they might at least have tried to argue along those lines...
It’s one thing to take pride in breaking the law, a special thing to do so when you aren’t actually doing so!
That the government are boasting about "breaking the law", bigging it up when they could easily take the more normal option of dissembling and playing it down, is imo the key clue as to what the game is here.
I think this is right. "International law" is better understood as "contracts between nations". Anyone who has run a business knows how this works. It's not "breaking the law" in the same way that throwing a brick through someone's window is breaking the law.
Yes. We view this similarly, I think.
It's not a perfect analogy but Johnson & Co here are like the boy at school who claims to have beaten up a teacher when all he did was tweak his tie, and then when he returns from the Head's office, having been given a ticking off, tells everyone he's been caned.
Upshot (if it works) - it's Big Bad Boris Battling Brussels for Britain.
Yes I agree. Starmer stuck to his government incompetence theme and calm delivery. Johnson tried deflections as usual but didn't jump the shark like he did last week.
Johnson looked very anxious, almost bewildered at times, with his mouth hanging slackly open. No - I don't feel sorry for him.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Can many pubs make it work like this? As we saw during the summer, it seems most went to having as many people as possible standing (outside) pretty quickly.
Government seems determine to wipe out the pub trade frankly. Make it so difficult they can't survive, but not so obviously difficult that Sunak has to cough up some survival money.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Yes. 6 on that table. 6 on that table. 6 on that table etc etc. So if the plan is to stop people gathering indoors then leaving the pubs open makes the whole policy stupid.
Hence the no standing rules so larger parties who book larger parties will be separated by the 1m distancing rules.
Hardly, shops, pubs and restaurants will still be open, gatherings over 6 will still be allowed for public worship, at weddings and funerals, in workplaces and schools and in team sports.
It is a minor change to reduce house parties etc nothing more
a national curfew is a “minor change”?
There is no curfew, as of Monday I can still go to Church, go to work, go to school, go to the pub with 6 others, go shopping wearing a mask, go to a restaurant with 6 others, play organised football or cricket, go to the gym and go to a wedding or funeral with 29 other attendees
Wrong, as I read it.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
The risk of fraternising with more than 5 others at the average church service is not large.
Every pub will exceed the number of people set as the restriction. But its ok because money.
I just got an email from my local where I book tables updating the guidance saying that party sizes must now be six or below and no standing rules are going to be enforced indoors and they're back to table service only. Not sure what it will be like elsewhere though.
Can many pubs make it work like this? As we saw during the summer, it seems most went to having as many people as possible standing (outside) pretty quickly.
Not sure, but as long as it's outside it doesn't seem like a huge deal.
Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. Plus I suspect Starmer knows it's best to let Tory discontent on this stew for a whole longer, by staying off the topic he prevents the Tories from closing ranks. Smart move I say.
Comments
Much better I agree. Not a high bar mind.
3 they claim to be checking 20%
How about Johnson take back his comments on the IRA?
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1303651005184212994?s=20
The view of these peers is that Lewis’ comments about breaking international law and the fact that the bill is unlikely to get legislative consent motions from Holyrood, Stormont or Cardiff Bay will make the Lords feel they are justified in holding it up. The nature of the most controversial changes to the bill, attempting to change the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, means that the government can’t appeal to the Salisbury convention – which means that the unelected house doesn’t hold up or obstruct government manifesto commitments.
Watching PMQs why is Johnson setting up strawman arguments against SKS and then complaining that he keeps asking the same question that he refuses to answer?
Its just waffle. Again.
You can go to the pub with five others, ditto restaurants.
You can however fraternise with any number of fellow churchgoers, which is, frankly, bonkers.
Pubs are far more popular than churches.
If a further Act now explicitly says that notwithstanding the prior Act that the law is different, then that Act would surely take precedence?
3. Checking 20% of what - the people whose details they have? But what about all the people who didn't complete a form?
Yesterday my son's 8 year old daughter was told to get a test here in Colwyn Bay and was told the nearest test availability was in Oldham of all places
So Wales NHS has the same issue
It would be pathetic. If it wasn't already priced in.
Hopefully all sorted soon.
They've gone back.
They've been setting up the arrangements for the St Leger for weeks. I doubt it will be particularly high risk. The stands are large and open. There are some marquees as normal but they have open sides and there won't be as many people crammed in.
The biggest risk might be if lots of people travel up on the train, but 3500 is a small number compared to a normal year.
The course is on a common so it would be very difficult to keep all spectators out anyway.
State aid was never under the jurisdiction of Scotland, it was under the jurisdiction of the EU.
Brilliant.
Such a shame they are not so good at things like running a competent administration and dealing with a pandemic. Cock ups galore there, sadly for all.
Speaker: I ask you to withdraw it
Blackford: I do not withdraw it
Speaker: I accept that you have withdrawn it.
Eh?
You can't even leave home to walk the dog
Not even Cathedrals are having that many for services and churches are not having after service coffee at the moment either and only 2 households maximum are allowed per pew at least 2 metres apart
They mentioned kids playing football. So yes, the kids can go to school in large numbers and walk home together across the park in large numbers and thats ok. But if they start kicking a ball about in the park its dangerous and that must be stopped.
Its so clear...
Well practically everyone actually.
Not to mention that pubs are (quite rightly) still open: you can have 100 people in one assuming a maximum of six people arrive together and/or meet anyone else they know there only by accident.
Apart for that quibble, I tend to agree with your characterisation - though of course such agreements between government do also have consequences in criminal law (for example the War Crimes Tribunal).
The other point is that what the government is trying to do is unilaterally modify bits of the contract it recently signed, while claiming that the other obligations under the contract are unaffected.
So it is not just the point that we are showing other countries that in future we can't be expected to abide by our commitments (risking a reputation hard won over centuries), but that we don't even accept the basis on which international agreements operate.
This is so they can track people and - cue laughter - send them for a test if needs be.
Inch by inch our freedoms are given up without a peep. And for what purpose?
Again, where is the overall strategy? What is the goal? Flatten the peak? Save the NHS from drowning? Elimate all covid from Britain? What is it now?
Is there much of a chance that the NHS is about to be drowned in majorly serious cases and deaths?
I don't think so.
1. Johnson has absolutely no idea what is going on
2. Johnson is not well
3. Johnson is desperate for a culture war
That takes me to a fourth takeaway:
4. Johnson is not fit to be Prime Minister
accessing basic necessities like food and medicines where you cannot arrange for these to be delivered"
Phone rings. Hello, I am checking that you are self-isolating. Yes I am, though I am currently outside going to the shop. I couldn't get a delivery slot and have run out of milk. Oh ok thanks"
He looks like a spent force ... can he hold on until the year end? I must re-check those odds.
https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1303654701725081601?s=20
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1303656214618943489?s=20
The government sets policy for the UK, with the consent of Parliament, which is sovereign. No external body can force the UK to adopt any law or policy without Parliamentary consent (leaving aside prerogative powers and so on). If the UK Parliament passes a law, it is the law, end of story.
The government can enter into treaties - agreements - with other nations or international bodies. When people talk about "international law", it is these agreements that they are referring to. Such treaties cannot force a change in UK law or policy, for the reasons given above - Parliamentary sovereignty rules. If the government agrees a treaty, and Parliament subsequently passes a law which conflicts with the treaty, then the law passed by Parliament takes priority.
There is, therefore, no sense in which "international law" can override Parliament. Agreements with other nations are just that - agreements. They are, in principle, not much different from contracts between firms. In much the same way, the existence of a contract with a customer or supplier cannot compel a company's board or executive to behave in any particular way ("specific performance", in the jargon). Do we agree?
This leaves us with a hopefully much simpler conversation about the costs and benefits of making and breaking agreements, without the tedious armchair constitutional scholarship. This should be seen as a political question: was it right to agree the WA? Is it right, having made the agreement, to break it?
They'll be on separate tables.
The plan is not to stop people gathering indoors, it is to try and contain the virus. That doesn't mean zero risk it means getting the balance right on risk.
A pub is in theory a controlled environment and can be shut down. It is definitely not the same as a house party.
It is easy to pick holes in any 'rules' though. What would your solution be? No rules at all?
It's not a perfect analogy but Johnson & Co here are like the boy at school who claims to have beaten up a teacher when all he did was tweak his tie, and then when he returns from the Head's office, having been given a ticking off, tells everyone he's been caned.
Upshot (if it works) - it's Big Bad Boris Battling Brussels for Britain.
Johnson looked very anxious, almost bewildered at times, with his mouth hanging slackly open. No - I don't feel sorry for him.
Nor were most of the other 20th century PMs bar Lloyd George, Attlee and Churchill.
Boris is also the first Tory PM since Thatcher to have won a big majority
Plus I suspect Starmer knows it's best to let Tory discontent on this stew for a whole longer, by staying off the topic he prevents the Tories from closing ranks. Smart move I say.