That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
The percentage of global closed cases as a proportion of total cases has just reached 75%. It reached 74% three days ago. If that trend continues the epidemic should be over in about 75 days' time. (Of course the number of days in which is increased from 74% to 75% may not have been representative, but I think it pretty much is. It's been like that for a while — about 3 days for a whole percentage point increase).
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
It didn't, it did something which was probably a breach of one section of the treaty. "Abrogated" means something altogether different from what you think it means.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
You should listen to Prof Mark Elliott. He’s quite conservative in his defence of Parliamentary Supremacy normally. This is an interest development.
The way the EU treats a country it partly depends on for its own security and protection has always seemed nuts to me, but there we are.
We are not exactly reliable any more and we have, numerous times, threatened to withhold security information and cooperation with Europe to force a Good Deal ™
They are not exactly loosing anything here. Who the hell is ever going to trust us?
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
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.
The problem isn't the risk for the 'herd', it is the risk for the individual.
If there is a 1/10000 risk of a bad reaction, then why wouldn't I wait until everyone else has been vaccinated and thus herd immunity has been achieved without taking the risk myself?
Your numbers are of course correct if the vaccination is compulsory.
Compulsory vaccination of adults would surely be unprecedented, unenforceable, and a shark-jumpingly insane infringement of liberty. Is anyone proposing it?
Given that COVID is largely harmless to the vast majority of the population of working age I’m not sure why the purpose of vaccination need be “herd immunity”? If the most at risk are vaccinated and the rest aren’t then the virus basically ceases to become an exceptional public health problem. So why would special measures be needed to combat it. If there is no material risk of the NHS becoming overwhelmed why should taking the risk of contracting the virus not become a matter of personal choice?
It seems to me that we’re in danger of thinking that the actual health consequences of the virus are an irrelevance. If vaccine for the vulnerable backed up by improved treatment results in acceptable health outcomes when set against other public health issues, why does it need to go any further? In the case of flu we only routinely vaccinate the vulnerable (and it’s still a matter of personal choice). Why should this be any different? Yes unfortunately there will be a relatively small number of people who can’t have the vaccination, and are vulnerable - but again that is not a unique situation with vaccines.
Harmless?
"Very likely you won't die" isn't necessarily equated to "harmless"
Using the latest numbers on the IFR variance with age (which is indeed hugely different for the young and the old) and the figures for the first 16,573 hospitalised in the UK to work out the proportion of each age that died to those who were hospitalised and recovered, and the best estimates I've found that 5% of all ages suffer "long Covid" (up to 3 months of symptoms) and a minority of those have on-running chronic damage (estimated at a fifth; could be higher and could be lower) and comparing that to the demographics of the UK in each age range:
That's not at all rigorous, of course, but should be broadly indicative.
A "harmless" virus that hospitalises a third of a million of the age range to whom it is "harmless", kills more than 16,000 of them, and leaves a further third of a million with on-going incapacity of some degree or another (and more than one and a half million incapacitated for up to a quarter of a year) - it does seem to be placing rather an excessive load on the word "harmless."
The vast majority of those who become ill in the younger age groups will have preexisting conditions, obesity or some other comorbidity – and would therefore be shielded under any risk segmentation strategy.
Can you post the figures for fit and healthy under 45s?
Can you post your strategy for separating families and workplaces where you don't have only young people or only fit people?
Families where Dad is older than you and Mum is younger, and so are the kids?
Workplaces where half are over 45 and half under?
Shops, restaurants, gyms, public transport - to be divided between under 45s and over 45s?
"Risk segmentation strategies" are pure fantasy and always will be.
Even if they weren't - filter out the non-obese (down to 71%) and the non-asthmatics and non-diabetics (about 85% of the remainder; down to 60%) and those with other co-mobidities (another 5% off), and you're down to 20 million people out of the 67 million of the UK.
You're trying to somehow give freedom to under a third of the country by some bizarre apartheid separation where you're shielding "only" two thirds of the country. Including the parents of loads of the first lot, who are somehow to be separated from their kids!
And, of course, the "long covid" and chronic conditions don't seem to have any requirement for co-morbidities. So a million of those 20 million - at least - will have lengthy incapacity, and quite a few of them will have that go on and on and on.
Not that I expect you to change your mind. You've decided that this MUST be a way and there MUST not be a danger to your chosen demographics. Reality, though, gives no craps over what you want to believe.
That's a very long, angry, intemperate rant to say: "I don't have the numbers you are asking for."
Here's a risk segmentation strategy by a very senior medical professional, Dr David Katz. You should give it a read, and consider it.
Moreover, I'm not at all sure your numbers on comorbidities are correct: 15 million people in England have preexisting conditions (many of them already in the older age groups), 40 million people in England are free from preexisting conditions.
Pointing out that it’s bollocks is “angry and intemperate”?
And if 40 million out of 67 million are “free from preexisting conditions”, does that include “free from obesity”?
(Notwithstanding that there are only 37 million under 45 to start with).
I note that the “strategy” you link gives no hints as to the method to split out families and workplaces under 45; simply a list of separating out over 60s, over 75s, etc.
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
If this is exactly what Cummings wanted last year then it's a wonder he bothered to vote through the WA after GE2019.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
So, why not do that?
Presumably because the political calculation is that the government would rather someone else takes the blame for whatever clustershambles is incoming. Either the enemy within (aka Remoaners) or without (aka Brussels) or both.
But what do No 10 really want? A No Deal which is someone else's fault, or an extension which is someone else's fault? (The crucial bit is the someone else's fault bit.) Because there is no sign that anyone in the UK has the capacity to prepare for an actual No Deal, and Christmas is 3 1/2 months away.
A not-our-fault extension (sorry, Interim Pay-as-you-go no strings trade deal for a bargain £300 million a week), on the other hand, keeps the wheels turning and the psychodrama going, and the government is largely held together by the psychodrama.
Given that even Michael Howard is against this, the trade bill is surely and predictably going nowhere. But what if everyone tuts, but nobody external to the government forces them to ditch it? Do they have to climb down themselves? What happens then? Alternatively, what happens if the government is lumbered with a law it didn't really want, but hoped they would have snatched from them?
Well put.
It's like one of those "hold me back" moments when the bloke looks round to see that no one is holding them back.
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
If the French don't stop the deadly Channel crossings and the UK decided to copy Australia's precedence in dealing with the problem, then I wonder who would support that and who would oppose that?
I imagine much of the outrage would be similar to the response to this.
There’s no international water between the UK and France so the Australian model cannot apply as far as I can recall.
Also Australia pays Fiji or someone to take the refugees don’t they? Who are we going to pay?
Any country that wants money. 💰
My proposal would be we speak to Turkey. We give Turkey a hefty chunk of "development" money from our Aid budget and do a refugee exchange with them. Any illegal migrant who makes it across gets deported immediately back to Turkey and we take a legitimate refugee from a Turkish refugee camp.
Interesting proposal.
Personally I would have prisons for dangerous criminals overseas. I would put the asylum claim centres in the same place. Claims are processed there, and the prison transports can take prisoners out from the UK, and bring successful asylum claimants back. Any asylum claimants that come directly to the UK, can also get to the asylum centres the same way. I think the flow would dry up pretty quickly, which would be a great blow against people trafficking.
I think that probably having this in India, as a guest of the Indian Government, makes sense.
The percentage of global closed cases as a proportion of total cases has just reached 75%. It reached 74% three days ago. If that trend continues the epidemic should be over in about 75 days' time.
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
It seems you have not actually understood the points being made by the Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
That is not what I was taught concerning tax law. If you think about it, the international treaty has to take precedence otherwise the treaty has no value.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
The percentage of global closed cases as a proportion of total cases has just reached 75%. It reached 74% three days ago. If that trend continues the epidemic should be over in about 75 days' time.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
The percentage of global closed cases as a proportion of total cases has just reached 75%. It reached 74% three days ago. If that trend continues the epidemic should be over in about 75 days' time. (Of course the number of days in which is increased from 74% to 75% may not have been representative, but I think it pretty much is. It's been like that for a while — about 3 days for a whole percentage point increase).
The percentage of global closed cases as a proportion of total cases has just reached 75%. It reached 74% three days ago. If that trend continues the epidemic should be over in about 75 days' time.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Parliament can legislate for the UK to break international law. But it cannot change international law which, as even the abysmal Braverman note recognises, exists.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
If this is exactly what Cummings wanted last year then it's a wonder he bothered to vote through the WA after GE2019.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
So, why not do that?
Presumably because the political calculation is that the government would rather someone else takes the blame for whatever clustershambles is incoming. Either the enemy within (aka Remoaners) or without (aka Brussels) or both.
But what do No 10 really want? A No Deal which is someone else's fault, or an extension which is someone else's fault? (The crucial bit is the someone else's fault bit.) Because there is no sign that anyone in the UK has the capacity to prepare for an actual No Deal, and Christmas is 3 1/2 months away.
A not-our-fault extension (sorry, Interim Pay-as-you-go no strings trade deal for a bargain £300 million a week), on the other hand, keeps the wheels turning and the psychodrama going, and the government is largely held together by the psychodrama.
Given that even Michael Howard is against this, the trade bill is surely and predictably going nowhere. But what if everyone tuts, but nobody external to the government forces them to ditch it? Do they have to climb down themselves? What happens then? Alternatively, what happens if the government is lumbered with a law it didn't really want, but hoped they would have snatched from them?
Well put.
It's like one of those "hold me back" moments when the bloke looks round to see that no one is holding them back.
It's exactly that - problem is that everyone has seen through it for what it is and given that they have also seen the consequences of being the previous people to "hold me back" everyone has decided this time to just let them got on with it.
With seen Starmer say get on with it. The EU for months have been saying get on with it...
The only people not getting on with it is Boris and Co who seem to be playing to a crowd who will never be satisfied but equally don't know what they actually want.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
This is what many of us predicted years ago. It's extremely difficult for the Tories not to be very substantially damaged by Brexit, possibly for a generation, whichever route is taken.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
Indeed, our decline really started with economic competition from Germany and the USA in the mid to late 19th century, accelerated after Ireland went and in WW2 and peaked when we lost India in 1947 and ceased to be a superpower as a result, even if ending the Empire was morally right. It continued when we lost the remaining African and Asian colonies in the 1950s and 1960s and then reached its nadir in the 1970s with high inflation, high taxes and low gdp per capita, near bankrupt nationalised industries and constant union strikes.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 by voting for Brexit and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
It seems you have not actually understood the points being made by the Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge.
Elliott is wrong. It was the Supreme Courts judgement that struck down the points he is making. The government is merely relying on the judgement the Supreme Court made.
For Elliott to have a case, he would have to argue that he has been against the Supreme court's judgement from the outset, which he wasn't. He is only piping up now a law he failed to criticise is being used in a cause he does not favour.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
What do you make of the politics of this Phillip? I would have imagined that if the provisions of a treaty are found retrospectively to be impossible to abide by, the best thing would be to keep schtum and just break them when you have to, and claim it's just your interpretation. Advertising it upfront is a completely different thing. Is it a strong arm negotiating tactic?
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
I'm a Brexiteer. I've never wanted "purity"; I've wanted pragmatic detachment from the EU and a new relationship established.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
He should resign for even going there
He's doing the right thing.
At least he's sticking up for the UK, something May never did.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
Indeed, our decline really started with economic competition from Germany and the USA, accelerated after Ireland went and in WW2 and peaked when we lost India in 1947 and ceased to be a superpower as a result, even if ending the Empire was morally right. It continued when we lost the remaining African and Asian colonies and then reached its nadir in the 1970s with high inflation, high taxes and low gdp per capita, near bankrupt nationalised industries and constant union strikes.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
And who, may I ask, gave the left behind that vote without realising the possible consequences of that vote?
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
Indeed, our decline really happened when we lost India in 1947 and ceased to be a superpower as a result, even if ending the Empire was morally right. It continued when we lost the remaining African and Asian colonies and then reached its nadir in the 1970s with high inflation, high taxes and low gdp per capita, near bankrupt nationalised industries and constant union strikes.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
The 1970s was also in fact a period of lower inequality and greater psychological well-being. 1976, according to multiple social-psychological surveys, was Britain's happiest year. Economic decline, and the decline of community cohesion did not go hand in hand. The latter was key to the 1980s.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
What do you make of the politics of this @Philip_Thompson? I would have imagined that if the provisions of a treaty are found retrospectively to be impossible to abide by, the best thing would be to keep schtum and just break them when you have to, and claim it's just your interpretation. Advertising it upfront is a completely different thing. Is it a strong arm negotiating tactic?
Not really - if we pull the trick planned we can't be trusted which means we can't be trusted for anything.
And the consequences of that will be far further reaching then Boris or so think and expect.
Sterling now two € cents down on the day, four since Friday.
I'm nervous about our ability to borrow money and the prospect of a Sterling crisis. That's where a loss of international trust leads.
So our exports are going to be more competitive?
A fall in sterling was inevitable if we went for a no deal Brexit. If people think that's more likely now then sterling should fall in anticipation - and that will would more than offset for our exporters the tariffs they'll face. Maybe we can improve our balance of trade deficit?
Extremes have similarities with each other so I could easily see some ultra-hard Brexiteers catapulting into becoming full Federalists (with the zeal of the convert) once this doesn't work out.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
This is not about who governs Britain at all, it is about conforming to an international etiquette. An international etiquette that Britain has always tried to conform to in order to take the moral high ground against regimes that might like to destabilise the equilibrium.
This is a massive role reversal. This is the law according to Putin and Kim.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
He should resign for even going there
He's doing the right thing.
At least he's sticking up for the UK, something May never did.
Nope, he's actually just trying to fix a screw up he himself created by not grasping exactly what May had managed to pull off..
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
No question that rolling back on this will be incredibly damaging to the government, if their fingerprints are over it.
And I know you think that a No Deal in January will be fine; I'm really unconvinced.
But the EU can't be seen to panic and cave to the UK on this. Look at it from their point of view; if they cave to us, they weaken their stance in all the other negotiations they do. They can't afford to fold.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
What do you make of the politics of this @Philip_Thompson? I would have imagined that if the provisions of a treaty are found retrospectively to be impossible to abide by, the best thing would be to keep schtum and just break them when you have to, and claim it's just your interpretation. Advertising it upfront is a completely different thing. Is it a strong arm negotiating tactic?
Its a good question. I don't think its possible to keep shtum since without the notwithstanding clause the courts would enforce the treaty over this. There is no denying the nature of that notwithstanding clause so in one way its a case of go big or go home.
This isn't where I expected the talks to end up though I must admit. This has given the EU every excuse to end the talks and blame us, I thought the government would if there's a failure in the talks be looking to play the blame game more rather than take on the blame like this.
The ultra-Brexiteers (and Cummings/Johnson) are making the same mistake the up-their-own-arseholes Remainers did last year in trying to prevent Brexit.
They think the parliamentary maths protects them this time.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
You should learn to read before you criticise. He’s saying that Parliament can pass any law it wants, but that doesn’t change the obligation to follow international treaties the executive has freely signed up to. Yes domestic legislation is required to implement treaties in domestic law due to the nature of our duelist system, but we are still required to follow them even if that domestic law is repealed. It would simply be a breach.
The consequences of which we will find out.
The supreme court's judgement has struck down that argument though. There are no caveats to its decision that a government may deliberate on British soil and pass laws on domestic soil that contravene international obligations and do so legally. The judgement is clear and simple. Parliament is not bound.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
Indeed, our decline really happened when we lost India in 1947 and ceased to be a superpower as a result, even if ending the Empire was morally right. It continued when we lost the remaining African and Asian colonies and then reached its nadir in the 1970s with high inflation, high taxes and low gdp per capita, near bankrupt nationalised industries and constant union strikes.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
The 1970s was also in fact a period of lower inequality and greater psychological well-being. 1976, according to multiple social-psychological surveys, was Britain's happiest year. Economic decline, and the decline of community cohesion did not go hand in hand. The latter was key to the 1980s.
In 1976 we had one of the lowest gdp per capitas in western Europe, lower inequality is pointless if you are on average relatively poorer.
The switch from a mass manufacturing and production economy to a largely services based economy has occurred across the western world
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
Why would they do what you suggest in your last sentence? So we (the UK) can have our cake and eat it. You are deluded.
Breaking: yet another u-turn on quarantine, Portugal moved back in, copying Scotland and making it the fifth change in an in-out-in-out-in sequence.
Meanwhile if Theresa is taking her usual Alpine walking holiday, she’ll have to join me in the Italian Alps since her party’s government has made France, Austria and Switzerland essential travel only.
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
Indeed, our decline really happened when we lost India in 1947 and ceased to be a superpower as a result, even if ending the Empire was morally right. It continued when we lost the remaining African and Asian colonies and then reached its nadir in the 1970s with high inflation, high taxes and low gdp per capita, near bankrupt nationalised industries and constant union strikes.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
The 1970s was also in fact a period of lower inequality and greater psychological well-being. 1976, according to multiple social-psychological surveys, was Britain's happiest year. Economic decline, and the decline of community cohesion did not go hand in hand. The latter was key to the 1980s.
In 1976 we had one of the lowest gdp per capitas in western Europe, lower inequality is pointless if you are on average relatively poorer.
The switch from a mass manufacturing and production economy to a largely services based economy has occurred across the western world
In the 1970s lower inequality was of a piece with stronger community relationships and coherence. GDP per capita, very simply, is an extremely blunt measure of a country's wellbeing. Look at America's GDP per capita compared to France's in the early 1970s, for instance, and then look at their respective levels of deprivation, division, and health, life, and educational outcomes.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
I really doubt that we will - Boris's government don't want one.
I think @Stuartinromford nailed it. They want something but for it not to be their fault. If they are forced into taking responsibility, which they seem to be, they will choose the least damaging.
If it is a forced choice then least damaging to Boris will be to continue to a no deal Brexit.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
He should resign for even going there
He's doing the right thing.
At least he's sticking up for the UK, something May never did.
He might be sticking up for your UK, but he's not sticking up for mine. My UK has integrity, decency and honesty (and, of course, sticks by laws it has agreed to).
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Christ on a bike. Look, if parliament passed a law providing for the extermination of the Welsh, on the giving of royal assent that law would be BOTH an unassailably valid, unchallengeable part of UK law AND a flagrant breach of the Genocide Convention. Do you simply not understand that two different but non-contradictory statements about something can both be true at the same time?
The ERG and their fellow travellers are about to be hoist by their own petard.
By getting what they wanted? 😏
I don't think that they will. At least two out of Tory split, change of PM, early election or coalition government likely to come about before the Brexit upheaval is resolved. The resolution will be TM deal mark 2 or softer.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
It seems you have not actually understood the points being made by the Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge.
Elliott is wrong. It was the Supreme Courts judgement that struck down the points he is making. The government is merely relying on the judgement the Supreme Court made.
For Elliott to have a case, he would have to argue that he has been against the Supreme court's judgement from the outset, which he wasn't. He is only piping up now a law he failed to criticise is being used in a cause he does not favour.
As I say, you have entirely misunderstood the Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Christ on a bike. Look, if parliament passed a law providing for the extermination of the Welsh, on the giving of royal assent that law would be BOTH an unassailably valid, unchallengeable part of UK law AND a flagrant breach of the Genocide Convention. Do you simply not understand that two different but non-contradictory statements about something can both be true at the same time?
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Christ on a bike. Look, if parliament passed a law providing for the extermination of the Welsh, on the giving of royal assent that law would be BOTH an unassailably valid, unchallengeable part of UK law AND a flagrant breach of the Genocide Convention. Do you simply not understand that two different but non-contradictory statements about something can both be true at the same time?
No way. When the country finally comes to its senses, we're going to have to rebuild trust from a position of extreme weakness, and re-convince international partners that we are still a serious country. Therefore the more that our institutions have made clear that the Johnson government is an aberration, not a sign of the permanent decline of the country, the better.
But: the Johnson government is not an aberration, the country is in permanent decline, and is not serious.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Sadly, the United Kingdom has been in relative decline since 1850. Pointing the finger at the Brexit vote and the resignation of Cameron and Co. is daft.
Indeed, our decline really happened when we lost India in 1947 and ceased to be a superpower as a result, even if ending the Empire was morally right. It continued when we lost the remaining African and Asian colonies and then reached its nadir in the 1970s with high inflation, high taxes and low gdp per capita, near bankrupt nationalised industries and constant union strikes.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
The 1970s was also in fact a period of lower inequality and greater psychological well-being. 1976, according to multiple social-psychological surveys, was Britain's happiest year. Economic decline, and the decline of community cohesion did not go hand in hand. The latter was key to the 1980s.
In 1976 we had one of the lowest gdp per capitas in western Europe
The percentage of global closed cases as a proportion of total cases has just reached 75%. It reached 74% three days ago. If that trend continues the epidemic should be over in about 75 days' time. (Of course the number of days in which is increased from 74% to 75% may not have been representative, but I think it pretty much is. It's been like that for a while — about 3 days for a whole percentage point increase).
You can't safely extrapolate like that - if the virus is past its global peak, then there will indeed be a steady global decline (the US figures are looking hopeful) but if you just extrapolate in a straight line then extend it a bit more and you get negative cases in 80 days' time.
That is total b8llcoks I'm glad he's not my lawyer.
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
Parliament can break international law - well its accurate but it's probably not the best thing to do as it has consequences.
Its not breaking international law internationally. We aren;t walking away from Nato. Even now the Royal Navy is on a massive exercise to counter Russian power in the Arctic, something of huge benefit to the EU's security as well as everybody else's
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
It is, as you say, possible for Britain to declare that it does not feel bound by treaties that it has signed. Nobody will invade or drop bombs on Buckingham Palace. However, it has two consequences:
(1) Nobody will bother to sign a treaty with us ever again, until this doctrine is explicitly revoked. Would you sign a business deal with someone who claims the right to revoke it at will?
(2) We lose the right to criticise any other country that revokes treaties, including treaties with us. Why, for instance, should China worry about what they promised over Hong Kong?
Right now, I'd prefer Starmer. And I'm a right-wing Tory.
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
Welcome to the dark side.
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
Comments
The supreme court's judgement is clear. On our own patch, parliament can do what it likes, whatever international treaties say. Parliament takes precedence.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200906020711/https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
They are not exactly loosing anything here. Who the hell is ever going to trust us?
And if 40 million out of 67 million are “free from preexisting conditions”, does that include “free from obesity”?
(Notwithstanding that there are only 37 million under 45 to start with).
I note that the “strategy” you link gives no hints as to the method to split out families and workplaces under 45; simply a list of separating out over 60s, over 75s, etc.
It's like one of those "hold me back" moments when the bloke looks round to see that no one is holding them back.
Personally I would have prisons for dangerous criminals overseas. I would put the asylum claim centres in the same place. Claims are processed there, and the prison transports can take prisoners out from the UK, and bring successful asylum claimants back. Any asylum claimants that come directly to the UK, can also get to the asylum centres the same way. I think the flow would dry up pretty quickly, which would be a great blow against people trafficking.
I think that probably having this in India, as a guest of the Indian Government, makes sense.
https://twitter.com/profmarkelliott/status/1304076143398662144?s=21
https://twitter.com/profmarkelliott/status/1304076144782778368?s=21
https://twitter.com/profmarkelliott/status/1304076146154319872?s=21
These are the people who thought Brexit would be a good idea.
I remember on referendum night in 2016 saying how I was happy for you that you had got the result you wanted. I was.
But what we were also saying pre-referendum is that the "pure" Brexit each Brexiter had in their mind was a fantasy and never ever going to be implemented. It would always be something that they didn't want, whether from the soft or hard side.
And so it has proved.
This has all been coming for decades, but I'm-all-right-Jack Tories (and Blairites) have no conception of that.
Its infringing it domestically. In Britain. On British soil.
This is about who governs Britain, on British soil. We are saying we do.
The consequences of which we will find out.
With seen Starmer say get on with it.
The EU for months have been saying get on with it...
The only people not getting on with it is Boris and Co who seem to be playing to a crowd who will never be satisfied but equally don't know what they actually want.
Pulling back from this now would destroy the Government, Boris would have to resign.
Though I think the EU will be in negotiations with the UK to try and reach an urgent deal, in exchange for us dropping this.
I'm nervous about our ability to borrow money and the prospect of a Sterling crisis. That's where a loss of international trust leads.
Thatcher halted it in the 1980s with her privatisations and union reforms and tax cuts and her victory in the Falklands War and arguably by Blair's cool Britannia regime at least initially we had regained our confidence.
Cameron and Clegg then started to rebalance the finances after the Brown crash but the left behind got their protest vote over austerity and uncontrolled immigration in 2016 by voting for Brexit and the rise of populism whether under Corbyn or now Boris has continued ever since.
For Elliott to have a case, he would have to argue that he has been against the Supreme court's judgement from the outset, which he wasn't. He is only piping up now a law he failed to criticise is being used in a cause he does not favour.
I was happy with May's Deal, and I hope you'll recognise I've always said that and argued for that on here? I'd also be happy with the current WA + a full FTA, although I think it's a bit harsh on NI. I also think a domestic state aid regime could be worked out with the EU (the EU are still waiting on our proposal) and a reasonable compromise on fish.
So, it's there it's just slipping through our fingers at the 11th hour.
And, it turns out there's just not enough people who think like me.
At least he's sticking up for the UK, something May never did.
A fall in sterling was inevitable if we went for a no deal Brexit. If people think that's more likely now then sterling should fall in anticipation - and that will would more than offset for our exporters the tariffs they'll face. Maybe we can improve our balance of trade deficit?
NEW THREAD
This is a massive role reversal. This is the law according to Putin and Kim.
And I know you think that a No Deal in January will be fine; I'm really unconvinced.
But the EU can't be seen to panic and cave to the UK on this. Look at it from their point of view; if they cave to us, they weaken their stance in all the other negotiations they do. They can't afford to fold.
At no point will they take any responsibility.
This isn't where I expected the talks to end up though I must admit. This has given the EU every excuse to end the talks and blame us, I thought the government would if there's a failure in the talks be looking to play the blame game more rather than take on the blame like this.
They think the parliamentary maths protects them this time.
They're wrong.
The switch from a mass manufacturing and production economy to a largely services based economy has occurred across the western world
Meanwhile if Theresa is taking her usual Alpine walking holiday, she’ll have to join me in the Italian Alps since her party’s government has made France, Austria and Switzerland essential travel only.
But let's hope it's starting to tail off!
(1) Nobody will bother to sign a treaty with us ever again, until this doctrine is explicitly revoked. Would you sign a business deal with someone who claims the right to revoke it at will?
(2) We lose the right to criticise any other country that revokes treaties, including treaties with us. Why, for instance, should China worry about what they promised over Hong Kong?