On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
The difference between Trump having a 19% chance of winning and a 1% chance of winning, is being out by a factor of 19. Which is equivalent to estimating an average man's height as being over 30m.
Serious point: suggesting that something has (say) an 85% chance of happening does not mean you're wrong if it doesn't. It's basically like saying "I'm unlikely to roll a 1 on this die" and then rolling a 1.
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
And that would have been better than what is happening now how?
USC/Dornsife has B55 T40, still consistent with the theory that their panel never changes its mind and it's just going to keep repeating the numbers from 2 weeks ago when they last polled the same people on the panel.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
He will row back of course he will and we will have a deal in advance of the cut off.
100%.
The only uncertainty is how he will spin it and what @Philip_Thompson will say it is and why he thinks it is such a masterstroke.
The latter is obvious - the EU will be said to have folded in the face of the Internal Market Bill, and the controversial provisions were only intended to apply in the case of no deal, so with a deal in place it's of no consequence to withdraw them.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
I think it's the former, although the mere attempt to give themselves the right to breach the treaty is itself probably a breach:
The difference between Trump having a 19% chance of winning and a 1% chance of winning, is being out by a factor of 19. Which is equivalent to estimating an average man's height as being over 30m.
Serious point: suggesting that something has (say) an 85% chance of happening does not mean you're wrong if it doesn't. It's basically like saying "I'm unlikely to roll a 1 on this die" and then rolling a 1.
Look at the Sam Wang link not the tweet, Sam Wang had a 99% chance, and subsequently ate a bug on telly.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
Agreed. It would appear that there would be no opportunity to take Judicial Review proceedings against the Executive decisions.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
And that would have been better than what is happening now how?
Just pointing out that the rationale given at the time was perhaps bogus. If Cox had stood up at the time and said that, ultimately, we can legislate our way out of the backstop if the EU are uncompromising, the WA might have been voted through and history might be different. Except, of course , Johnson would likely not be PM.
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
And that would have been better than what is happening now how?
No practical difference, but it would have saved a lot of time, the government would not have lost support - even that of HY, apparently - and Geoffrey Cox would not have made a fool of himself, by being completely wrong on a point of law.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I agree, but with one caveat. Quite often, stuff that initially seems quite esoteric and dry will have implications for stuff the public does care about, and so at some point there will suddenly be massive cut-through. One example is phone-hacking, which was an absolutely massive scandal but was a lonely crusade by the Guardian and Max Moseley until the Millie Dowler revelations when the whole thing exploded and brought down the NotW. In other words, sometimes the public doesn't realise something is important at first, but if it really is important they will realise eventually. Is this a likely example of that? I suspect it is, but as for what the trigger will be for the silent majority to get it, that I don't know.
If there is a direct link to a No Deal that delivers economic pain and job losses, the demonstrable fact that the government lied to the electorate as a matter of deliberate policy during the 2019 general election coud well cut through. Not all of the Tory vote came from nihilists. Some, at least, really did believe what they were told, while others were repelled by the alternative on offer.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
Boris is already finding what his predecessors as Tory leader found: the nutjobs won't take Yes for an answer, they'll keep ratcheting up their increasingly bonkers demands.
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
And that would have been better than what is happening now how?
No practical difference, but it would have saved a lot of time, the government would not have lost support - even that of HY, apparently - and Geoffrey Cox would not have made a fool of himself, by being completely wrong on a point of law.
I think Geoffrey Cox got it right. He said that there was no way to get out within international law. Breaking the law is an option but not one within international law.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
And that would have been better than what is happening now how?
No practical difference, but it would have saved a lot of time, the government would not have lost support - even that of HY, apparently - and Geoffrey Cox would not have made a fool of himself, by being completely wrong on a point of law.
Cox was working on the basis that no UK government would contemplate the rejection of international law and reneging on treaty commitments it had made. His legal advice was consistent with the advice supplied by the Treasury solicitor and with the established view of the rule of law.
The difference between Trump having a 19% chance of winning and a 1% chance of winning, is being out by a factor of 19. Which is equivalent to estimating an average man's height as being over 30m.
Serious point: suggesting that something has (say) an 85% chance of happening does not mean you're wrong if it doesn't. It's basically like saying "I'm unlikely to roll a 1 on this die" and then rolling a 1.
Look at the Sam Wang link not the tweet, Sam Wang had a 99% chance, and subsequently ate a bug on telly.
Boris is already finding what his predecessors as Tory leader found: the nutjobs won't take Yes for an answer, they'll keep ratcheting up their increasingly bonkers demands.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
I’m currently in hospital and it certainly isn’t empty.
I hope you are being well looked after, and doing OK.
I had my latest set of blood tests last week post July's Lukemia-treatment, and that is good news - haemoglobin and white cells are back to the lower end of "normal" levels, and the platelets and the other one are going back up but not there yet.
So officially back from shielding to cautious. And now on a periodic 3 then 6 month test regime.
Which is all to the good. Now I need to start getting some proper exercise and strength back. I did, however, manage to land on my Rs on the oak floor this week, so a touch sore around the rear end.
Get my scan results tomorrow, best outcome Would be no further spread or growth of existing tumors. So fingers crossed, best wishes to all in similar situations
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
One of the most amazing examples of Boris's political genius is how he's turned the British euro-sceptic movement - hitherto the bane of every Conservative leader - into an annex of Borisism. For example, the way they swooned over Boris's Withdrawal Agreement - a more EU-friendly measure than Theresa's by any measure - shows how absolutely smitten they are with the guy.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
One of the most amazing examples of Boris's political genius is how he's turned the British euro-sceptic movement - hitherto the bane of every Conservative leader - into an annex of Borisism. For example, the way they swooned over Boris's Withdrawal Agreement - a more EU-friendly measure than Theresa's by any measure - shows how absolutely smitten they are with the guy.
Internal market bill - I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this, but in the discussion about the Govt overriding International law, it doesn’t seem to have been much commented that the bill gives ministers the powers to override NATIONAL law as well. The EU seem to have noticed.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
There’s no cut-through with the public with this stuff. As far as they are concerned Brexit is done. This is all bubble stuff.
I was miffed with Boris reneging on international treaties yesterday but, having slept on it, I now realize it was just a clumsy attempt by Boris and Dom to reopen the Brexit culture war and paint Sir Keir into a corner. Once the noise has died down I suspect Boris will row back as he always does. No point getting stressed out by all this.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
One of the most amazing examples of Boris's political genius is how he's turned the British euro-sceptic movement - hitherto the bane of every Conservative leader - into an annex of Borisism. For example, the way they swooned over Boris's Withdrawal Agreement - a more EU-friendly measure than Theresa's by any measure - shows how absolutely smitten they are with the guy.
The trick is that you don't worry about giving them things that make them happy, you concentrate on things that make their enemies annoyed.
Nixon is absolutely spot on. The world is swimming with private cash and immense expertise looking for the next big thing in tech. The mistake he makes is to confuse Dom's mates, who can't get funding, with the next big thing in tech.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
LOL.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
It makes me smile that the Bob Woodwood revelation, re Trump playing down the seriousness of the virus to prevent panic, just for once shows that Trump had a logical thought and was making a moral decision (whether right or wrong) and he has to deny it (and as usual even though the evidence is there for us all to hear).
What a place we have arrived at in politics.
The irony is that he could have hit the panic button, people would have believed him, followed him and rewarded him for making the right decision at the right time. He would be a national hero by now and looking at a landslide win in November.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
If he tells them it was victory, many of them will cheer it.
I doubt it, to be honest. They are fundamentalists. They believe only the true Brexit. If they cannot have that, then it is a betrayal.
And what is true Brexit? England with a wall around it? Southern England with a wall around it? Londinium-uber-alles?
The true Brexit cannot happen unless the EU is seen to have lost.
That's fine. The Brexiters are dumb enough to be told that even the most resounding and transparently obvious EU victory and UK climbdown is a great achievement by the UK.
On topic. I think Mike is right I would want better odds on Trump. I think he will win (unlike HYFUD, I would be more positive on him winning PA and less on MI) but it doesn’t take huge numbers to tilt the result. What I think will kill Biden’s chance is actually weak performance in the Black and Hispanic votes - the former because of a slight shift to the Republicans but mainly because of dissatisfaction with how urban Mayors have handled the crime situation / uptick in murders, the Hispanic vote because there is a feeling the Biden campaign has somewhat ignored them and the growing number of Hispanic evangelicals are more pro-Republican.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
LOL.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
There is a blithe assumption that a government that rejects international law, curtails Parliament's ability to scrutinise its actions, emascualtes the judiciary and sees lawyers and journalists as the enemy is somehow wedded to the idea of free and fair elections. Experience in other countries where this happens tends to show this is not actually the case.
Given the ERG reaction, how can Johnson row back? If he does, they will be up in arms.
If he tells them it was victory, many of them will cheer it.
I doubt it, to be honest. They are fundamentalists. They believe only the true Brexit. If they cannot have that, then it is a betrayal.
And what is true Brexit? England with a wall around it? Southern England with a wall around it? Londinium-uber-alles?
The true Brexit cannot happen unless the EU is seen to have lost.
That's fine. The Brexiters are dumb enough to be told that even the most resounding and transparently obvious EU victory and UK climbdown is a great achievement by the UK.
Then, very slowly, they realise it isn't. And it all starts again.
"A former PB regular has been in touch with me to say that we’ve got it all wrong over the betting on the American election. He argues that Trump is in a much better position than several of the recent posts on the site have suggested and there are reasons to believe that the US polling is is not correct."
I find this very weak information on which to bet money with. If I had to choose a betting strategy based on agregating professional opinion polls, or the unfounded opinion of somebody who used to post on an internet forum, I'm pretty sure which would come out as the better strategy long term.
I think Boris's power-grab will get cut-through to the public, and sooner rather than later. It has only been a couple of days and those in the Westminster bubble are starting to get worked up about it because a lot of them will lose powers under this.
They will make sure that bill gets painted in the worst possible light and the ensuing fight will be popcorn stuff for the media.
This one is not going to go smoothly. I am just waiting for someone in power to accuse Boris et al of fascism, dictatorship, Mugabae-ism, etc.
Too many MPs have too much to lose. PPS's are resigning. It is a slow start but as it gathers momentum it will speed up.
(Are we allowed to use the phrase "Tipping Point" again?)
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
I hope you're right. If there is any sanity lurking in the government on this they are doing a jolly good job of hiding it.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
LOL.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
There is a blithe assumption that a government that rejects international law, curtails Parliament's ability to scrutinise its actions, emascualtes the judiciary and sees lawyers and journalists as the enemy is somehow wedded to the idea of free and fair elections. Experience in other countries where this happens tends to show this is not actually the case.
Call me a reactionary old fool but I do not see this government messing with the elections.
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
"A former PB regular has been in touch with me to say that we’ve got it all wrong over the betting on the American election. He argues that Trump is in a much better position than several of the recent posts on the site have suggested and there are reasons to believe that the US polling is is not correct."
I find this very weak information on which to bet money with. If I had to choose a betting strategy based on agregating professional opinion polls, or the unfounded opinion of somebody who used to post on an internet forum, I'm pretty sure which would come out as the better strategy long term.
If the reasoning were given an airing, then the conclusion might be different, but otherwise, I entirely agree. One can't entirely ignore it, but it is (I'm sorry to say) one of Mike's worst headers.
(edit) Though his point about the current odds is entirely fair.
On topic. I think Mike is right I would want better odds on Trump. I think he will win...
Sorry, but this post makes no sense on its face.
If you think Trump is probably going to win then odds of better than evens on Trump (which they are) are good value, simple as that. You're not agreeing with Mike as you claim - he is plainly saying those odds are NOT good value.
Unless you mean "I would want better odds" in the sense you'd want even more generous odds, in which case that's true of any bet on anything! Nobody ever wants worse odds on their selection.
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
Tiny movement towards Biden on the SI spreads this morning.
First glimpse of planet reality popping through the clouds?
Well maybe but there was a huge number of polls published yesterday and although it was the usual mixed bag you'd have to say the Biden camp would be the happier with them
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
LOL.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
There is a blithe assumption that a government that rejects international law, curtails Parliament's ability to scrutinise its actions, emascualtes the judiciary and sees lawyers and journalists as the enemy is somehow wedded to the idea of free and fair elections. Experience in other countries where this happens tends to show this is not actually the case.
Call me a reactionary old fool but I do not see this government messing with the elections.
If that were true then the positive test rate would consist of two components: a constant rate of positive results due to our own genetic material and a variable rate due to the RNA from the virus.
The positive test rate in the UK has varied from << 1% to > 30%.
That variance surely has to be due to variations in incidence of the virus, since our own DNA is fixed. The hypothesis is rejected.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
Yes, the crux of the matter is that the Gov't is trying to legislate that the British mainland can in extremis send goods to Northern Ireland if the EU say boycotted (Or more generally without tarriffs) the UK's goods generally. Particularly agricultural goods.*
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
Tiny movement towards Biden on the SI spreads this morning.
First glimpse of planet reality popping through the clouds?
Well maybe but there was a huge number of polls published yesterday and although it was the usual mixed bag you'd have to say the Biden camp would be the happier with them
You'd also just expect a favourite to become a stronger favourite gradually over time in an ongoing event.
If you accept the polls aren't totally wrong and Biden probably does have a narrow lead in key states, then you can still argue that Trump is a proven campaigner and has time to catch up. But every passing day is one less day to catch up... and we're now down to 53 days.
It's just the same as live odds on a football match. If a team is 1-0 up after five minutes in a roughly evenly matched contest, they might be favourites but not strong ones. If the scoreline is the same at 60 minutes, they will be stronger favourites. If it's the same at 89 minutes, they will be very strong favourites indeed.
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
I think yesterday was a step too far, personally. I can see why it is popular, however.
And that is in spite of it not being popular with ANYONE I've spoken to about it since...
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
No politician, but Sumption and Hitchens have decent platforms for this. Farage seems very quiet on it all
So the claims by the ERG types, backed up by Geoffrey Cox, that May’s backstop would render the U.K. to an eternity of vassal statehood were wrong. The U.K. could always have reasserted domestic law over the putative withdrawal agreement. Or am I missing something?
And that would have been better than what is happening now how?
No practical difference, but it would have saved a lot of time, the government would not have lost support - even that of HY, apparently - and Geoffrey Cox would not have made a fool of himself, by being completely wrong on a point of law.
Cox was working on the basis that no UK government would contemplate the rejection of international law and reneging on treaty commitments it had made. His legal advice was consistent with the advice supplied by the Treasury solicitor and with the established view of the rule of law.
So he did not realise just how unprincipled the Conservative Party had become (or was becoming). Either way, he is not a good advert for a Conservative minister.
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
I think, at the moment, the new measures are still accepted as being temporary and so that reduces the potential for a political backlash.
This could be very different if we're still in the same limbo by next March, one year on from the first restrictions. Won't look so temporary then.
Tiny movement towards Biden on the SI spreads this morning.
First glimpse of planet reality popping through the clouds?
Well maybe but there was a huge number of polls published yesterday and although it was the usual mixed bag you'd have to say the Biden camp would be the happier with them
You'd also just expect a favourite to become a stronger favourite gradually over time in an ongoing event.
If you accept the polls aren't totally wrong and Biden probably does have a narrow lead in key states, then you can still argue that Trump is a proven campaigner and has time to catch up. But every passing day is one less day to catch up... and we're now down to 53 days.
It's just the same as live odds on a football match. If a team is 1-0 up after five minutes in a roughly evenly matched contest, they might be favourites but not strong ones. If the scoreline is the same at 60 minutes, they will be stronger favourites. If it's the same at 89 minutes, they will be very strong favourites indeed.
Not if they're Arsenal because by 90' + 3 it will be 2-1 to the other side.
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
No politician, but Sumption and Hitchens have decent platforms for this. Farage seems very quiet on it all
Farage seems to be anti the new measures actually, I have just looked it up.. But I am sure he was critical of the govt for not locking down earlier in Spring.
Either way, I think it would be an easy way to get a lot of support for any politician who wanted to exploit the anger, however sincere their own view
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
I think, at the moment, the new measures are still accepted as being temporary and so that reduces the potential for a political backlash.
This could be very different if we're still in the same limbo by next March, one year on from the first restrictions. Won't look so temporary then.
I think they'll still be in place come next June or so. By which point I reckon the vaccine will be starting to be rolled out. One big last hurrah for everyone this weekend.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
LOL.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
There is a blithe assumption that a government that rejects international law, curtails Parliament's ability to scrutinise its actions, emascualtes the judiciary and sees lawyers and journalists as the enemy is somehow wedded to the idea of free and fair elections. Experience in other countries where this happens tends to show this is not actually the case.
Call me a reactionary old fool but I do not see this government messing with the elections.
Don't do Telegraph ££. What does it say? No more elections until Boris has populated the country with enough of his children to achieve an overall majority from them alone?
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
So much for making Britain great again. We are going to be utterly diminished on the world stage
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
No politician, but Sumption and Hitchens have decent platforms for this. Farage seems very quiet on it all
Farage seems to be anti the new measures actually, I have just looked it up.. But I am sure he was critical of the govt for not locking down earlier in Spring.
Either way, I think it would be an easy way to get a lot of support for any politician who wanted to exploit the anger, however sincere their own view
A big problem is the various anti-lockdown talking heads seem to be all putting their views forward in the Telegraph. That's paywalled, which is good for business revenue (If they've got enough subs) but means it'll never reach the masses.
At every step of the way it is vital not to conflate anger at the virus with anger at the government's handling of the virus.
We all say pictures of 1st world health services overwhelmed with people on trolleys in hospital corridors. So there was a genuine concern.
The question is how valid is that concern now?
If we ignored precautions then would we end up back at the potential for overflowing hospitals? What do the modellers think? We have been testing 200-300,000/day now for some time haven't we? Isn't that a non-trivial proportion of the population?
Plus vulnerable people are more aware now.
I'm not sure of the answers to this but in general I disagree with this lockdown on the basis that we can see off or cope with a second wave, it is very authoritarian, and the balance of risk (it is "just" a disease, and one which affects a specific and small group) does not justify such an infringement upon liberty and general measures.
Don't do Telegraph ££. What does it say? No more elections until Boris has populated the country with enough of his children to achieve an overall majority from them alone?
Do Boris' children like him? I don't think it's entirely clear whether he can rely on all of their votes.
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
Don't do Telegraph ££. What does it say? No more elections until Boris has populated the country with enough of his children to achieve an overall majority from them alone?
Do Boris' children like him? I don't think it's entirely clear whether he can rely on all of their votes.
Don't do Telegraph ££. What does it say? No more elections until Boris has populated the country with enough of his children to achieve an overall majority from them alone?
Do Boris' children like him? I don't think it's entirely clear whether he can rely on all of their votes.
He'll need to give them all peerages.
In which case they couldn't vote at all! (In General Elections).
At every step of the way it is vital not to conflate anger at the virus with anger at the government's handling of the virus.
We all say pictures of 1st world health services overwhelmed with people on trolleys in hospital corridors. So there was a genuine concern.
The question is how valid is that concern now?
If we ignored precautions then would we end up back at the potential for overflowing hospitals? What do the modellers think? We have been testing 200-300,000/day now for some time haven't we? Isn't that a non-trivial proportion of the population?
Plus vulnerable people are more aware now.
I'm not sure of the answers to this but in general I disagree with this lockdown on the basis that we can see off or cope with a second wave, it is very authoritarian, and the balance of risk (it is "just" a disease, and one which affects a specific and small group) does not justify such an infringement upon liberty and general measures.
And we have "saved the NHS" so successfully that most of it is deserted.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
LOL.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
There is a blithe assumption that a government that rejects international law, curtails Parliament's ability to scrutinise its actions, emascualtes the judiciary and sees lawyers and journalists as the enemy is somehow wedded to the idea of free and fair elections. Experience in other countries where this happens tends to show this is not actually the case.
Call me a reactionary old fool but I do not see this government messing with the elections.
Someone mentioned on here a week or so ago that the FTPA can be repealed and without replacement it could mean Johnson is PM until the 80 strong majority dwindles to a minority.
I wonder whether the gap in the political market is now for an anti Lockdown party. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the governments policy from any of the opposition parties
Restrcting gatherings to 6 had ~ 75% approval iirc. Seeing as it's (Like Brexit) an issue that doesn't particularly have a right-left ideological bent I'd suggest an anti-lockdown party would have slim pickings ?
75% amongst the kind of people who answer opinion polls!
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
No politician, but Sumption and Hitchens have decent platforms for this. Farage seems very quiet on it all
Farage seems to be anti the new measures actually, I have just looked it up.. But I am sure he was critical of the govt for not locking down earlier in Spring.
Either way, I think it would be an easy way to get a lot of support for any politician who wanted to exploit the anger, however sincere their own view
Farage is a contrarian who enjoys media attention. When the government wasn't locking down he could get attention by being "decisive" and saying we should. When the government is acting he can say we shouldn't. Either way he gets attention.
On the treaty breach thingammy, am I right in thinking that what the British government are currently legislating for is the *ability* to break the treaty? ie the UK has some responsibilities under the treaty they signed, the law currently requires the government to fulfill those responsibilities, but they're trying to make a new law that would allow them to breach them without breaking British law, but the breach doesn't happen until they do?
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
According to RTÉ the EU Commission isn't even waiting until the Bill is passed into law to take legal action, on the basis that the publication of the Bill is a breach of the good faith provisions in Article 5 of the Bill.
Thanks, do you know what court can they go to and what remedy the court could impose if it agreed?
The Twitter thread @Richard_Nabavi linked to has the details, but briefly: ECJ, fines, suspension of provisions in the Treaty/any future trade agreement except for citizens rights.
Yes.
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
So much for making Britain great again. We are going to be utterly diminished on the world stage
Comments
Or does the treaty require the legislation to be there, and changing the law breaks the treaty before they do anything to act on it?
Serious point: suggesting that something has (say) an 85% chance of happening does not mean you're wrong if it doesn't. It's basically like saying "I'm unlikely to roll a 1 on this die" and then rolling a 1.
If the govt is losing HY .... it is game over.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968534117126145
(the whole Twitter thread is worth a look).
https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1303992598026223616
And Johnson could be General Galtieri.
Starmer just needs to sit and watch in his office.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1303999373802721280
Brilliant!
In practice presumably the UK would ignore any fines imposed by the ECJ, but what would then happen is that the EU would suspend cooperation with the UK until we'd complied. Eventually the UK would go back to the EU and ask to reopen talks, and you don't need to be an expert in international relations to guess what the first item on the agenda would be.
This is of course utter insanity: no even vaguely responsible government would want to engage in an acrimonious high-profile legal dispute with our closest allies and largest trading partner, which would do immense damage to our reputation and more importantly our economy. So it can't be ruled out.
But it can. Is my opinion. If nothing else Boris might look at what's happened economically over the past few months and while not needing to accept any of the doomsday scenarios, might realise that economic disruption is not just an abstract concept but something very real that money needs to be spent on and, more importantly still, elections fought and won and perhaps lost over.
Might have a whip-round for the London Republican Army in the pubs of Kilburn tonight.
I find this very weak information on which to bet money with. If I had to choose a betting strategy based on agregating professional opinion polls, or the unfounded opinion of somebody who used to post on an internet forum, I'm pretty sure which would come out as the better strategy long term.
They will make sure that bill gets painted in the worst possible light and the ensuing fight will be popcorn stuff for the media.
This one is not going to go smoothly. I am just waiting for someone in power to accuse Boris et al of fascism, dictatorship, Mugabae-ism, etc.
Too many MPs have too much to lose. PPS's are resigning. It is a slow start but as it gathers momentum it will speed up.
(Are we allowed to use the phrase "Tipping Point" again?)
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1303998607880790016?s=20
https://twitter.com/nickymb123/status/1304001773212925965
One can't entirely ignore it, but it is (I'm sorry to say) one of Mike's worst headers.
(edit) Though his point about the current odds is entirely fair.
If you think Trump is probably going to win then odds of better than evens on Trump (which they are) are good value, simple as that. You're not agreeing with Mike as you claim - he is plainly saying those odds are NOT good value.
Unless you mean "I would want better odds" in the sense you'd want even more generous odds, in which case that's true of any bet on anything! Nobody ever wants worse odds on their selection.
Wasn't her last gig "giant iPad bimbo" for Peston?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/29/either-electoral-commission-reforms-will-abolish/
The positive test rate in the UK has varied from << 1% to > 30%.
That variance surely has to be due to variations in incidence of the virus, since our own DNA is fixed. The hypothesis is rejected.
* I think
I think the new measures will cause a lot of anger. But I don't think there has been any politician in the UK that has argued against the governments measures, or the direction of travel, has there?
If you accept the polls aren't totally wrong and Biden probably does have a narrow lead in key states, then you can still argue that Trump is a proven campaigner and has time to catch up. But every passing day is one less day to catch up... and we're now down to 53 days.
It's just the same as live odds on a football match. If a team is 1-0 up after five minutes in a roughly evenly matched contest, they might be favourites but not strong ones. If the scoreline is the same at 60 minutes, they will be stronger favourites. If it's the same at 89 minutes, they will be very strong favourites indeed.
And that is in spite of it not being popular with ANYONE I've spoken to about it since...
Although miles better than the current lot.
This could be very different if we're still in the same limbo by next March, one year on from the first restrictions. Won't look so temporary then.
Either way, I think it would be an easy way to get a lot of support for any politician who wanted to exploit the anger, however sincere their own view
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/10/uk-corrupt-nation-earth-brexit-money-laundering
We all say pictures of 1st world health services overwhelmed with people on trolleys in hospital corridors. So there was a genuine concern.
The question is how valid is that concern now?
If we ignored precautions then would we end up back at the potential for overflowing hospitals? What do the modellers think? We have been testing 200-300,000/day now for some time haven't we? Isn't that a non-trivial proportion of the population?
Plus vulnerable people are more aware now.
I'm not sure of the answers to this but in general I disagree with this lockdown on the basis that we can see off or cope with a second wave, it is very authoritarian, and the balance of risk (it is "just" a disease, and one which affects a specific and small group) does not justify such an infringement upon liberty and general measures.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
I thought that was an interesting analysis.