Charles Walker on R4 just now doesn’t sound very happy with the Bozo plan. Is relying on it probably never coming to pass, and suggesting he would oppose it if it ever came to a vote in Parliament (whilst also suspecting a parliamentary vote would be avoided if at all possible)
As Starmer put it weeks ago - you are the Prime Minister. You are in charge. Shagger seems to think that because SKS is asking questions that it must all be his fault somehow.
He does look ill though. Lovely ladies of the court will be safe from his "I I knocked you up twice and lied to my wife about it" advances. A man of trust.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
538 was rubbish last time AIR?
Not really, they predicted TRump with a 30% chance of victory which was reasonable. Trump's victory was very narrow and within the MOE of the polls
From the leader whose party went from 1st to 3rd in a national election, remained as PM for many months afterwards and eventually still clung on close to the heart of government in the revolving doors of Irish politics. If he wants to call on others to resign, he should first set an example himself.
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.
Of course it can dissemble. And it can choose to play up or play down. Such is the art of communication.
Now the statute is public domain (which it was going to be) it was never going to be possible to dissemble that notwithstanding clause. It is there in black and white.
It is now up to our sovereign Parliament to decide whether it wants to authorise that or not. If our sovereign Parliament authorises that and puts it in statute then it is the law and the rule of law is maintained.
You don’t understand what the rule of law is. Lord Bingham, an upmost authority on the concept, stated the following: “the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Yes this is legal and “constitutional” but comply with the rule of law it does not.
I predicted the "notwithstanding" clause here, not surprised at all to see it.
This surely settles any "rule of law" debate under UK law does it not? If Parliament approves this law then it will be lawful and any objections by prior laws and regulations mentioned in the notwithstanding element are surely overriden by statute.
You can't see the wood for he trees and neither can your Government.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Professor Carl Heneghan suggests locking in the staff in a bubble and paying them very handsomely – reckons that 40% of all Covid deaths could be prevented this way.
That sounds totally unrealistic. Most of my elderly relative's carers have children of their own, for example.
Has any country managed care home bubbles successfully? They sound like the kind of thing that looks brilliant in a spreadsheet, but impossible to do with real people.
@FrancisUrquhart the problem does not appear to be the testing turnaround time, but the number of available tests vs demand.
A 24 hour turnaround doesn’t matter if you’ve had to wait 2 weeks for a test slot.
I understand. My point was that it does look like the system has become much more efficient while handling greater numbers, but clearly has broken down over the past week. Nobody seems to know exactly why. They say much greater demand, but the numbers being tested have never reached the alleged capacity.
Sounds like the capacity is in the wrong places to me. People told to go hundreds of miles. Others done locally bish bish nae bosh in a few hours.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Professor Carl Heneghan suggests locking in the staff in a bubble and paying them very handsomely – reckons that 40% of all Covid deaths could be prevented this way.
Nichomar asked "What are the rules around care homes?" present tense.
From the leader whose party went from 1st to 3rd in a national election, remained as PM for many months afterwards and eventually still clung on close to the heart of government in the revolving doors of Irish politics. If he wants to call on others to resign, he should first set an example himself.
Fine, I am happy to stand with the 40% of voters still voting Tory on the latest poll, the fact PB has a comfortable Starmer Labour/LD majority amongst posters now combined with the TUD and MalcG Nats in Scotland it seems does not change the fact that in the country there is much more support for Boris even if only a small minority on here back him.
Plus a few of the first, including TSE voted LD last year anyway
Which Cons policies particularly attract you, given that you disagree with their flagship policy of Brexiting (yes and I know you respect the democratic imperative to get it done)?
I disagreed with it at the time but I support it now given rejoining would likely require joining the Euro etc which if that was a requirement of membership in 2016 would have led me to vote Leave.
If the EU still want to keep control of our fishing waters etc then No Deal unfortunately looks inevitable
You disagreed with it in 2016 for a set of extremely sensible and valid reasons.
Only someone of the least sincere, and flakiest of political beliefs could possible agree with it now (and now make you feel better hypotheticals about Euro this and must speak French after midday that).
Please don't tell me you have abandoned your political convictions and beliefs. You didn't seem that type. More someone who knows their own mind and wouldn't sway in the wind.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
I haven't seen it. So Johnson was back on top form?
Well, Johnson probably was back on his top form. Five rounds of wibble then an extended rant. But he was clearly furious at not being asked the questions he wanted.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
I haven't seen it. So Johnson was back on top form?
Well, Johnson probably was back on his top form. Five rounds of wibble then an extended rant. But he was clearly furious at not being asked the questions he wanted.
Top form is when he avoids an absolute and total drubbing. The sort he got last week.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
It is annoying when the Leader of the Opposition has an IQ above room temperature - a sad departure from a glorious tradition.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
Boris Johnson will soon be faced with the reality of Brexit. WTO terms would be an absurd and very damaging and untenable outcome. A border on the island of Ireland is literally unthinkable. He must therefore agree to continued close alignment with the EU and he has to find a way to sell this to Leavers who he snowed and conned so skillfully to gain his majority. He might be able to do it, he is a boyo, but Labour's mission under Starmer is to do nothing - absolutely nothing - to make the task easier. And wittering on about "international law" would risk doing so.
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
538 was rubbish last time AIR?
They predicted Trump with 30 % probability. That is not the same as "Trump will not win" Have you ever rolled a die and got a 5 or 6? That's what Trump did.
In pillar 1 testing - that’s tests carried out by Public Health England labs and NHS hospitals - 89% of tests were completed within 24 hours of receipt at the lab.
For pillar 2 testing - which is most other testing - the median turnaround time for regional test sites was 24 hours, which means half of tests took more than a day and half took less.
For mobile testing units the figure was 22 hours, satellite testing centres took 76 hours and home testing kits took 86 hours.
-------
Getting 90% of pillar 1 tests turned around in 24hrs is pretty good. In the past week something has clearly gone tits up, but either the government is unwilling to say or don't know.
Remember back a few months ago when getting it done in < 3 days you were lucky.
Mine was collected by courier Saturday lunchtime and I got my result by SMS and email Monday lunchtime. That’s pretty efficient.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
This is my reading exactly – I don't see how FL is ever the tipping point.
Just for fun, when I did my map I ended up with Biden 270 WITHOUT PA or FL!
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
Clearly your hierarchy is international law < domestic law < personal opinion.
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.
Fine, I am happy to stand with the 40% of voters still voting Tory on the latest poll, the fact PB has a comfortable Starmer Labour/LD majority amongst posters now combined with the TUD and MalcG Nats in Scotland it seems does not change the fact that in the country there is much more support for Boris even if only a small minority on here back him
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
... He does look ill though. Lovely ladies of the court will be safe from his "I I knocked you up twice and lied to my wife about it" advances. A man of trust.
I struggle to see what these women see in Boris. He must be considerably more charming in person.
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.
Of course it can dissemble. And it can choose to play up or play down. Such is the art of communication.
Now the statute is public domain (which it was going to be) it was never going to be possible to dissemble that notwithstanding clause. It is there in black and white.
It is now up to our sovereign Parliament to decide whether it wants to authorise that or not. If our sovereign Parliament authorises that and puts it in statute then it is the law and the rule of law is maintained.
You don’t understand what the rule of law is. Lord Bingham, an upmost authority on the concept, stated the following: “the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Yes this is legal and “constitutional” but comply with the rule of law it does not.
Yes, the term is capable of varied definitions, but I don't think Philip quite gets it. I think a quick visit to Wikipedia might be in order before further argument.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Professor Carl Heneghan suggests locking in the staff in a bubble and paying them very handsomely – reckons that 40% of all Covid deaths could be prevented this way.
That sounds totally unrealistic. Most of my elderly relative's carers have children of their own, for example.
Has any country managed care home bubbles successfully? They sound like the kind of thing that looks brilliant in a spreadsheet, but impossible to do with real people.
Anecdotally, Florida is doing quite well on the care home score. I'm not sure if they've implemented bubbles specifically, but certainly whatever they are doing is working at least tolerably well.
What are the rules around care homes? Are they completely locked down including staff. If the Uk wants to take note of one thing from Spain is the rapid rise in cases in care homes, whilst they maintained visitor social distancing it looks like staff are bringing in the virus.
Professor Carl Heneghan suggests locking in the staff in a bubble and paying them very handsomely – reckons that 40% of all Covid deaths could be prevented this way.
Nichomar asked "What are the rules around care homes?" present tense.
I introduced it as an interesting subject for discussion prompted by the local care home here in Spain has just been ‘found’ to have 60 plus inmate cases and 15 staff. It looks as if they tried to hide it (allegedly) so I wondered if any focus was on this area in the UK ..?
I believe in the rule of law and democracy. A fundamental principle in democracy though is that the law can be changed, legitimately, via Parliament. That no Parliament can bind it's successors. That if the public do not approve of the law they can elect a government that will legitimately change the law.
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
Clearly your hierarchy is international law < domestic law < personal opinion.
And we wonder how some people vote for genocide.
More circular than linear. Personal opinion is both below and above domestic law.
Below in the sense that disagreeing with the law does not change or supersede the law.
Above in the sense that voting and Parliament can cause the law to change.
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
From Twitter
I’m not saying the PM isn’t channelling Pyrrhus, to put it in language with which he’s comfortable, I’m just trying to illuminate the government’s thinking.
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.
Fine, I am happy to stand with the 40% of voters still voting Tory on the latest poll, the fact PB has a comfortable Starmer Labour/LD majority amongst posters now combined with the TUD and MalcG Nats in Scotland it seems does not change the fact that in the country there is much more support for Boris even if only a small minority on here back him
Plus a few of the first, including TSE voted LD last year anyway
Gap narrowing from 4% to 2%, but from 9% to 2% if you compare with Survation's penultimate poll a month ago.
Maybe but the Tories still largest party and I doubt there are anywhere near 40% of PB posters who would vote for the Tories under Boris tomorrow now, unlike the 40% of UK voters who still would
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
Grieve on Sky News confirming what I've said all along, that this is legal within Parliament's powers - even if he distraught and upset and angry about it.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
This is my reading exactly – I don't see how FL is ever the tipping point.
Just for fun, when I did my map I ended up with Biden 270 WITHOUT PA or FL!
Though winning just 1 of Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin would be enough for Trump on that map if he held PA and FL and Ohio so still plenty of pathways for both candidates
@FrancisUrquhart the problem does not appear to be the testing turnaround time, but the number of available tests vs demand.
A 24 hour turnaround doesn’t matter if you’ve had to wait 2 weeks for a test slot.
I understand. My point was that it does look like the system has become much more efficient while handling greater numbers, but clearly has broken down over the past week. Nobody seems to know exactly why. They say much greater demand, but the numbers being tested have never reached the alleged capacity.
Sounds like the capacity is in the wrong places to me. People told to go hundreds of miles. Others done locally bish bish nae bosh in a few hours.
This is where I struggle to understand. How hard it is to tape off a car park and deploy a load of army personnel to shove q-tips up people's noses? You would hope old data scientist Cummings would have a load of people on this modelling where demand was picking up etc.
In the early days of this crisis, the big bottleneck was the stupid decision to only use PHE labs for testing. Eventually they got private / uni labs on board. We are led to believe that isn't the case now, but has nobody planned for "fast response" shifting of testing sites?
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
It is annoying when the Leader of the Opposition has an IQ above room temperature - a sad departure from a glorious tradition.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
Boris Johnson will soon be faced with the reality of Brexit. WTO terms would be an absurd and very damaging and untenable outcome. A border on the island of Ireland is literally unthinkable. He must therefore agree to continued close alignment with the EU and he has to find a way to sell this to Leavers who he snowed and conned so skillfully to gain his majority. He might be able to do it, he is a boyo, but Labour's mission under Starmer is to do nothing - absolutely nothing - to make the task easier. And wittering on about "international law" would risk doing so.
A border on the island of Ireland clearly is not 'literally unthinkable' because we've all just thought it. It's not even 'unthinkable' - though it is undesirable.
I am interested to see where this current situation is leading us. It seems to be an indication that the negotiations have taken a turn for the ugly - a situation that cannot be blamed entirely on one side or the other.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
Technically as it would remove the border in the Irish sea the DUP would likely vote for the amendment, so it only needs 318 out of 365 Tory MPs to vote for it for the bill to pass if the 8 DUP MPs decide to back it
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
I doubt that would be a given a problem given the DUP were happy to prop up Theresa May who definitely discredited - and an embarassment
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
They don't hate Johnson like they hate Dublin. They will be dancing through the lobbies in support of this.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
I think its safe to say after today the DUP are not going to be looking for revenge. They've just been given exactly they wanted - and they didn't even need to be given it considering the 80 seat majority.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
The DUP will want to remove the border in the Irish Sea first and foremost, they voted against Johnson last year as his Withdrawal Agreement meant a border in the Irish Sea, if Johnson now concedes to the DUP and removes the border in the Irish Sea they would now back his bill
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
I doubt that would be a given a problem given the DUP were happy to prop up Theresa May who definitely discredited - and an embarassment
But Theresa May was not malign in the way that Johnson so clearly is. Would the DUP want to support a Trump-like figure here?
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.
In churches you have to wear a mask unlike house parties where people are crammed together up the stairs, in the kitchen, the bedroom etc, sitting and standing right next to each other and yes the priest has to set it up so you sit 2 metres apart
So you are rejecting the idea that religious services (such as mosques) are vectors for covid?
Not everyone will accept the guidance is nonsense on stilts. But it is. The issue is large gatherings of people both indoors and outdoors. Indoors is apparently simple - people from more than 6 households should not meet. Unless they're at work. Or on a bus. Or in the pub. Or at school. Then its fine to have people from more than 6 households together.
Outdoors is also simple. Kids can't meet in the park to play football. Thats not safe. Unless its "organised" in which case the pox isn't interested in you. Or if its horse racing where its definitely safe to have 3,000 people in the stands.
If gatherings of people is too high a risk then its too high a risk. Being on licensed premises doesn't mitigate the risk. Having someone organise the football doesn't mitigate the risk. And we're all clear that people absolutely shouldn't break these laws in a specific and very limited way.
That's absolutely correct - from an individual point of view.
But not necessarily correct from a societal one.
Say the goal is to keep R at or around 1. That effectively gives you a budget across the whole of society. You can open schools, knowing a certain amount of CV19 will spread that way. But the flip side is that you need to find something else to balance the cases that come via schools.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
Technically as it would remove the border in the Irish sea the DUP would likely vote for the amendment, so it only needs 318 out of 365 Tory MPs to vote for it for the bill to pass if the 8 DUP MPs decide to back it
The DUP will dance through the lobbies in support of this legislation. The Lords will reject it, of course - which eans it will not hit the statute books until some time in 2022. So the interesting bit is what happens in the meantime. The government will presumably have to abide by the law as it is.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
I doubt that would be a given a problem given the DUP were happy to prop up Theresa May who definitely discredited - and an embarassment
But Theresa May was not malign in the way that Johnson so clearly is. Would the DUP want to support a Trump-like figure here?
Provided they remove the border in the Irish Sea yes, the DUP like Trump anyway
If I were the EU I would state that if this legislation passes, there will be no more meetings. Agreements are pointless if the Uk is going to renege on them. Don't call us. We're busy preparing for No Deal. End of any co-operation. Period.
Then Tories voting for the legislation wil be voting explicity for a painful No Deal and will have to live with the consequences.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
I haven't seen it. So Johnson was back on top form?
Well, Johnson probably was back on his top form. Five rounds of wibble then an extended rant. But he was clearly furious at not being asked the questions he wanted.
The oddest bit was when he answered a question on testing capacity with facts and figures on the track and trace program.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
I think its safe to say after today the DUP are not going to be looking for revenge. They've just been given exactly they wanted - and they didn't even need to be given it considering the 80 seat majority.
But how likely are they to trust him? Johnson would only use for as long as he needs them - before again casting them aside. Having Starmer as LOTO - rather than Corbyn - might also influence their attitude.
I have to say that after seeing these notwithstanding clauses going around that I am absolutely, absolutely delighted.
The government exactly what I wanted it to do and essentially exactly what I called on here for May to do two years ago. After years of calling for us to play hardball and make clear to the EU we will walk away the Government is exercising its sovereign right to do so and there can be no ambiguity on this whatsoever. Good.
Now assuming the Government doesn't blink now - and I don't see how that's possible now - either I have called this catastrophically wrong for years, or right. One way or another we'll find out soon. Good.
Jesus Christ - it must have been an absolute disaster for Starmer, given the lack of cheers on here. Wasn't this meant to be the moment the masterful legal mind hit the government for six over the international rule of law?
Until he decided to duck it, of course...
He did indeed "duck" it. He's sussed the game. Time for you to worry.
It is annoying when the Leader of the Opposition has an IQ above room temperature - a sad departure from a glorious tradition.
On the other hand, refusing battle does look a little cowardly, given how naturally the issue plays into his experience and character, and the expectations he's raised. If Starmer can't be fucked to ask a single question about it in Parliament, then the niceties of international law must not be such a big deal after all, and the Government gains ever greater latitude in that area...
Boris Johnson will soon be faced with the reality of Brexit. WTO terms would be an absurd and very damaging and untenable outcome. A border on the island of Ireland is literally unthinkable. He must therefore agree to continued close alignment with the EU and he has to find a way to sell this to Leavers who he snowed and conned so skillfully to gain his majority. He might be able to do it, he is a boyo, but Labour's mission under Starmer is to do nothing - absolutely nothing - to make the task easier. And wittering on about "international law" would risk doing so.
A border on the island of Ireland clearly is not 'literally unthinkable' because we've all just thought it. It's not even 'unthinkable' - though it is undesirable.
I am interested to see where this current situation is leading us. It seems to be an indication that the negotiations have taken a turn for the ugly - a situation that cannot be blamed entirely on one side or the other.
Yes, sorry, I fell into the "literally" trap. Your "undesirable" is a little weak though. So something between the two.
Let's go with "a reckless act of political vandalism that would compromise the Good Friday Agreement and risk the hard won peace."
I have to say that after seeing these notwithstanding clauses going around that I am absolutely, absolutely delighted.
The government exactly what I wanted it to do and essentially exactly what I called on here for May to do two years ago. After years of calling for us to play hardball and make clear to the EU we will walk away the Government is exercising its sovereign right to do so and there can be no ambiguity on this whatsoever. Good.
Now assuming the Government doesn't blink now - and I don't see how that's possible now - either I have called this catastrophically wrong for years, or right. One way or another we'll find out soon. Good.
Thank you Boris.
Just to be clear, under what circumstances will you concede that you have called this catastrophically wrong for years? If the EU fails to capitulate?
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
In reality it needs over 45 given that SF do not take their seats.
Won't it need about 54? As the DUP will surely vote with the Government on this?
Possibly so - though it is far from clear that the 8 DUP MPs will be in any hurry to bail out Johnson given his treatment of them a year ago. 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. How keen would they be to be seen to prop up a PM increasingly seen as discredited - and an embarrassment - even by many of his own MPs?
I think its safe to say after today the DUP are not going to be looking for revenge. They've just been given exactly they wanted - and they didn't even need to be given it considering the 80 seat majority.
But how likely are they to trust him? Johnson would only use for as long as he needs them - before again casting them aside. Having Starmer as LOTO - rather than Corbyn - might also influence their attitude.
If Corbyn had backed EEA and CU for the whole UK the DUP may even have backed him, it was not the leader of the Labour Party that was the issue (though they found his IRA links distasteful) as much as the border in the Irish Sea
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
This is my reading exactly – I don't see how FL is ever the tipping point.
Just for fun, when I did my map I ended up with Biden 270 WITHOUT PA or FL!
Though winning just 1 of Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin would be enough for Trump on that map if he held PA and FL and Ohio so still plenty of pathways for both candidates
Yes I realise this, by the way, this is not my prediction.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
That is the wank. As we all know, those do not go on forever. Withdrawing support for internaitonal law will have myriad consequences. First off, we are now almost certain to have no trade deal with the EU. We will also now find it much harder to get deals with other countries, Materially, therefore, the country will be less well and the economy will perform worse than would otherwise have been the case. That will impact jobs, public spending and much more besides. What's more ay an individual level, UK citizens and businesses will not be as free as they are today. All of this will have to be worked through.
The one interesting thing to come out of PMQs is Johnson's peevish complaint that Starmer didn't ask about the Internal Market Bill. Two takeaways;
Johnson MUCH prefers to talk about Brexit than Covid. Presumably why Starmer didn't in fact raise the international law issue.
Brandon Lewis was intentionally flagging up the illegality. Breaking the law is the government's policy objective and not just an inconvenient fact along the way.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
Bizarre.
When you resigned from your tennis club because they wouldn't let you play tennis on a GSX-R750 were you as exultant?
I have to say that after seeing these notwithstanding clauses going around that I am absolutely, absolutely delighted.
The government exactly what I wanted it to do and essentially exactly what I called on here for May to do two years ago. After years of calling for us to play hardball and make clear to the EU we will walk away the Government is exercising its sovereign right to do so and there can be no ambiguity on this whatsoever. Good.
Now assuming the Government doesn't blink now - and I don't see how that's possible now - either I have called this catastrophically wrong for years, or right. One way or another we'll find out soon. Good.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
That is the wank. As we all know, those do not go on forever. Withdrawing support for internaitonal law will have myriad consequences. First off, we are now almost certain to have no trade deal with the EU. We will also now find it much harder to get deals with other countries, Materially, therefore, the country will be less well and the economy will perform worse than would otherwise have been the case. That will impact jobs, public spending and much more besides. What's more ay an individual level, UK citizens and businesses will not be as free as they are today. All of this will have to be worked through.
I`m not disagreeing with any of that SO. I was merely responding to your comment: "How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?"
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
That is up to Parliament and the voters to determine.
The government in Parliament needs to exercise its new powers wisely and if we aren't happy we can kick them out. Its called democracy, you might be familiar with the concept?
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
I agree. People DID vote to be poorer. Compensated for by "being listened to" about "fewer foreigners" and "setting our own laws".
The sense of empowerment will, I predict, soon wear off but it is a real benefit for many and it's more powerful right now than more tangible concerns.
I have to say that after seeing these notwithstanding clauses going around that I am absolutely, absolutely delighted.
The government exactly what I wanted it to do and essentially exactly what I called on here for May to do two years ago. After years of calling for us to play hardball and make clear to the EU we will walk away the Government is exercising its sovereign right to do so and there can be no ambiguity on this whatsoever. Good.
Now assuming the Government doesn't blink now - and I don't see how that's possible now - either I have called this catastrophically wrong for years, or right. One way or another we'll find out soon. Good.
Thank you Boris.
Just to be clear, under what circumstances will you concede that you have called this catastrophically wrong for years? If the EU fails to capitulate?
No, because I think the UK will thrive even if the EU fails to capitulate.
If the EU fails to capitulate and then the UK collapses into ruin and we go back begging to be readmitted because we have blown up the economy . . . then I will have made a catastrophic mistake in judgement. But I don't expect that to happen.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
Bizarre.
When you resigned from your tennis club because they wouldn't let you play tennis on a GSX-R750 were you as exultant?
I find it bizarre too. But there you go. Many have gained a lot from leaving the EU, even though the gain isn`t a tangible one. Remainers make the mistake again and again of ignoring the emotions of the masses of people who hated ... HATED ... the EU. I think "British exceptionalism" pretty much sums it up.
The people I feel sorry for in the current Brexit mess are the career civil servants currently working in Rome and Copenhagen and the like, trying to get tax treaties in place by the end of this year. Given that it is the UK who overwhelmingly benefits from these being in place, I suspect that there will be a general attitude of "fuck you" from our continental neighbours.
Biden up to 74% on FiveThirtyEight, presumably due to a number of recent polls showing his national lead up to 10 points again. Have to say this feels a bit high given the recent polling Florida
There's basically what I see as 3 main scenarios on current National polling Biden Nightmare: Where Trump holds everything and add Minnesota to his tally. Biden Par win: Biden on 303 ECVs after taking back WI, MI, PA, NE-2 and FL (But he could easily not take Florida in this scenario, still a win but a desperately narrow EC one) Biden Smash: 345 Georgia and Arizona and NC fall as well.
Somehow Floria isn't important in any of them. In the nightmare scenario it doesn't matter if Biden has Florida or not, he still loses. In the par win as long as he takes back PA,MI,WI then Florida is irrelevant and obviously in the Biden Smash scenario Florida is a sideshow.
So given that I think htr 538 model is doing fine even with knife edge Florida polling?
This is my reading exactly – I don't see how FL is ever the tipping point.
Just for fun, when I did my map I ended up with Biden 270 WITHOUT PA or FL!
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
As far as I can tell, the only "promise" of a Canada-style deal that the EU ever made was a Canadian flag icon on a powerpoint presentation. It seems the UK government has put an awful lot of weight on a powerpoint slide that someone put together to demonstrate a hierarchy of plausible possible deals & the red lines that would have to be crossed in order to get them.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
That is up to Parliament and the voters to determine.
The government in Parliament needs to exercise its new powers wisely and if we aren't happy we can kick them out. Its called democracy, you might be familiar with the concept?
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
That is up to Parliament and the voters to determine.
The government in Parliament needs to exercise its new powers wisely and if we aren't happy we can kick them out. Its called democracy, you might be familiar with the concept?
What makes you think we are still going to have free and fair elections? Why would a government that does not believe in international law, is in the process of emasculating the judiciary and has substantially reduced the power of Parliament to hold it to account not seek also to remove the electorate from the equation?
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
It's not a repeal.
It says we can do loads of stuff that these existing laws say is illegal
Has the same effect as a repeal, or an amendment with an exception, doesn't it? Plenty to be fussed about over the international aspect, but overriding domestic legislation occurs all the time.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
Bizarre.
When you resigned from your tennis club because they wouldn't let you play tennis on a GSX-R750 were you as exultant?
I find it bizarre too. But there you go. Many have gained a lot from leaving the EU, even though the gain isn`t a tangible one. Remainers make the mistake again and again of ignoring the emotions of the masses of people who hated ... HATED ... the EU. I think "British exceptionalism" pretty much sums it up.
Well you would hate the EU if you had read the Mail and Express for twenty years and believed the shite they published.
Has the same effect as a repeal, or an amendment with an exception, doesn't it? Plenty to be fussed about over the international aspect, but overriding domestic legislation occurs all the time.
Still no
Repeal would require votes in Parliament.
This says ministers can break existing law whenever they like
Comments
He does look ill though. Lovely ladies of the court will be safe from his "I I knocked you up twice and lied to my wife about it" advances. A man of trust.
Yes this is legal and “constitutional” but comply with the rule of law it does not.
and they're off limits to punters turning up on the day.
https://twitter.com/DoncasterRaces/status/1303670627228880897
Only someone of the least sincere, and flakiest of political beliefs could possible agree with it now (and now make you feel better hypotheticals about Euro this and must speak French after midday that).
Please don't tell me you have abandoned your political convictions and beliefs. You didn't seem that type. More someone who knows their own mind and wouldn't sway in the wind.
Have you ever rolled a die and got a 5 or 6? That's what Trump did.
Just for fun, when I did my map I ended up with Biden 270 WITHOUT PA or FL!
And we wonder how some people vote for genocide.
Then again.... Melania Trump
I think a quick visit to Wikipedia might be in order before further argument.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1303672418947543045
Below in the sense that disagreeing with the law does not change or supersede the law.
Above in the sense that voting and Parliament can cause the law to change.
I’m not saying the PM isn’t channelling Pyrrhus, to put it in language with which he’s comfortable, I’m just trying to illuminate the government’s thinking.
In the early days of this crisis, the big bottleneck was the stupid decision to only use PHE labs for testing. Eventually they got private / uni labs on board. We are led to believe that isn't the case now, but has nobody planned for "fast response" shifting of testing sites?
I am interested to see where this current situation is leading us. It seems to be an indication that the negotiations have taken a turn for the ugly - a situation that cannot be blamed entirely on one side or the other.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
But not necessarily correct from a societal one.
Say the goal is to keep R at or around 1. That effectively gives you a budget across the whole of society. You can open schools, knowing a certain amount of CV19 will spread that way. But the flip side is that you need to find something else to balance the cases that come via schools.
https://twitter.com/eastantrimmp/status/1301198823646093312?s=20
Then Tories voting for the legislation wil be voting explicity for a painful No Deal and will have to live with the consequences.
The government exactly what I wanted it to do and essentially exactly what I called on here for May to do two years ago. After years of calling for us to play hardball and make clear to the EU we will walk away the Government is exercising its sovereign right to do so and there can be no ambiguity on this whatsoever. Good.
Now assuming the Government doesn't blink now - and I don't see how that's possible now - either I have called this catastrophically wrong for years, or right. One way or another we'll find out soon. Good.
Thank you Boris.
Let's go with "a reckless act of political vandalism that would compromise the Good Friday Agreement and risk the hard won peace."
https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/19/uk-blasts-eu-s-barnier-for-rejecting-post-brexit-canada-style-trade-deal
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
When you resigned from your tennis club because they wouldn't let you play tennis on a GSX-R750 were you as exultant?
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1303588386935123968
Edit: she's clearly pitching to people like me.
BoZoCummings is now World King" and be done with it...The government in Parliament needs to exercise its new powers wisely and if we aren't happy we can kick them out. Its called democracy, you might be familiar with the concept?
The sense of empowerment will, I predict, soon wear off but it is a real benefit for many and it's more powerful right now than more tangible concerns.
If the EU fails to capitulate and then the UK collapses into ruin and we go back begging to be readmitted because we have blown up the economy . . . then I will have made a catastrophic mistake in judgement. But I don't expect that to happen.
the EU. I think "British exceptionalism" pretty much sums it up.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
It says we can do loads of stuff that these existing laws say is illegal
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1303645147650027521?s=20
Repeal would require votes in Parliament.
This says ministers can break existing law whenever they like