I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
If there is ever a public inquiry then government messaging must be up for examination. The presentation of statistics has been appalling - often serving to stoke up fear and clearly motivated by a cover-our-arses mentality rather than tackling the pandemic in a rational way.
New York, still has heavy Covid restrictions. No second wave.
Arizona, Texas, Georgia - rapid lifting of locking down. Massive and obvious second waves.
Sweden has no COVID restrictions.
Second wave?
Sweden which closed down restraunts for failing to follow social distancing rules, bans care home visits, bans gatherings over 50 people, closed the universities and bans all flights from outside the EU since the 19th of March has no restrictions?
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
LOL, unionists getting really desperate yet again, Carlotta rolls out last resort of Agent Pish. Makes Johnson's lies sound reasonable, desperate desperate stuff. Unionists circling the drain on independence.
PS: Expect soon she will be whining about how we are too small and too stupid to have a currency.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
There is a lot of magnesium in a Victor so they should just set it on fire.
I always think nostalgia for bombers is a consequence of people separating in their minds the smooth design and engineering from what they actually do (ie kill people ,sometimes civilians in a fieiy death) . As a natural conservationist I often support heritage but never understood the passion for keeping ruthless killing machines
Tbf the Victor (thankfully since it was a nuclear bomber) never fired a shot in anger, unless you count it refuelling Vulcans during their Falklands missions.
From an historical pov it was Handley Page's last big military project after them being in at the start of UK aviation so significant, but there are already a few preserved Victor's kicking about therefore it would need a private individual with big pockets to get involved.
Mind you with the UK in a self fetishising mood, who knows?
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
What professionals are seeking professional advice on PB from a stranger?
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
I think they have no choice but to be careful. Can you imagine the reaction if Boris stood up and said 'OK, everyone, relax - we'll have a safe vaccine in November, guaranteed' and for whatever reason it didn't happen? He'd be crucified. But as it is he gets it in the neck from one lot for being too reckless and from the other for being too cautious.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Yes exactly. A real Alanis Morissette situation if it comes to pass.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
Does she need to malign him even when not he is not commenting? Just unnecessary.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
The partition playbook... "Orkney will fight, and Orkney will be right!"
One thing is clear - the EU aren't ever going to want us back.
MarqueeMark: what`s your view of Boris at the moment? I`m taken aback by some of the posts this morning. Especially this from Foxy:
"I think that there is a fourth character trait. For all his superficial charm, he cares nothing for other people, not even his own children or their mothers. That is a very dangerous thing in a leader, particularly so in the present times."
I`m no Boris fan but I`d never write something like that.
The vitriol of those suffering from Boris Derangement Syndrome has reached new heights today - he's sent his critics clean round the bend!
You may not like the tone, but is there any evidence that the criticisms of Johnson's personality are factually incorrect? Or that they are massive problems for a PM?
Remember that school report of BoJo that went viral a while back?
See what I mean? We're now digging through his school reports (!) to find fault (he was, by the way, a King's Scholar at Eton). Now, if we were to take the worst page of your school reports out of context, what might we find there? Be honest.
To my mind the serial adultery and child abandonment speaks for itself. When do you ever see a picture of Boris with his children from previous relationships?
Bozo and Brexit are too perfect together. Both are midlife crises being acted out in public.
I'll just quote from this article, since it sets out the abundant historical precedents quite nicely:
'David Lloyd George was a womaniser all his life and in 1943, when he was eighty and to the great disapproval of his daughters, he married Frances Stevenson who had been principal among his bevy of mistresses since 1913.'
'William Gladstone enjoyed the company of London prostitutes – claiming that his aim was their reform – even after he had been made Prime Minister. He had a strange religious temperament which went with a taste for being whipped.'
'Ramsay Macdonald, puritanical, rigorous and austere had a fifteen years’ secret relationship with Lady Margaret Sackville which only a few close friends knew anything about. He wrote her hundreds of intimate letters and what a biographer described as “explicitly romantic poems.”'
'Melbourne also had a long affair with the society beauty Caroline Norton. The husband demanded £1400 which Melbourne refused to pay. The affair continued.'
'The military genius the Duke of Wellington who delivered us from Napoleon was famously described in a contemporary biography as “a cad and a rutting stag.” He married Kitty Pakenham but found her unattractive so he ran a string of mistresses including a princess, many high-born ladies and an ambassador’s wife.'
Etc. etc. etc. But I'm sure their ages were full of tedious, pettifogging moralizers too.
Sure, particularly if you go back a century or more there are plenty of adulterous PMs. How many serially abandoned their children though?
I am old enough to remember when this sort of thing used to be considered a bad thing by Conservatives.
Boris is our Blond Whoremonger (a classical allusion I am sure he would understand). Alpha males are supposed to be able to fuck lots of women. It is the narrow conservative middle-class view of the family that is actually an anachronism.
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
I think they have no choice but to be careful. Can you imagine the reaction if Boris stood up and said 'OK, everyone, relax - we'll have a safe vaccine in November, guaranteed' and for whatever reason it didn't happen? He'd be crucified. But as it is he gets it in the neck from one lot for being too reckless and from the other for being too cautious.
Which has been the story of the pandemic throughout. The underlying problem is there is very little media now which gives news without partiality. The BBC has improved and is making the right noises but all the rest is constant punditry - just like CNN/Fox. They are not news channels any more.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
What professionals are seeking professional advice on PB from a stranger?
None. But there is a "stranger" on PB who is happy to tell lawyers how the law should work, tell doctors how medicine should work, tell engineers how....
Nigelb: as our chief science poster, what did you make of the "variolation" hypothesis forwarded by Foxy yesterday? I`m struggling to find out much about it but it may become a big thing and bring viral load back into the frame.
I’m a little disturbed that I should be though our ‘chief science poster‘ - most obsessive non expert might be more accurate. But I’ll have a go.
It’s a plausible hypothesis (but, DOSE, not load). We just don’t know if it’s true, though. Without running challenge tests, where you deliberately expose subjects and which obviously aren’t going to happen, there’s no way of demonstrating it directly. We should run animal experiments, but this is expensive, and constrained by lab capacity which is probably prioritised to stuff like vaccine studies - and while it might demonstrate the effect, wouldn’t give us any detail on what the human numbers might be. Population studies have massive confounding factors (the recent skew towards younger people making up a larger proportion of those infected is an example), so they are not going to give any answers any time soon.
It strikes me that is this were to become a thing it could transform people`s attitude to mask-wearing. Viral dose (not load) from now on then!
So mask wearing ought to appeal to those pursuing herd immunity every bit as much as those trying to avoid infection ? Not implausible.
Yes. That`s why I see this as so significant.
We need to temper people`s fear - which is often largely based on ignorance. I know this from the people I speak to. They are clueless and just believe the scare-mongering negative stuff they read in the media.
The personal risk analysis is in 2 parts. (i) How likely am I to get it? (ii) If I do get it how bad could it be?
And right now I would answer as follows -
(i) Unlikely. But more likely than a month ago.
(ii) Bad. Perhaps slightly less bad than in April but still bad. Do not want it.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
Did you make this argument when Labour used its majority to ratify the Lisbon Treaty?
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
What professionals are seeking professional advice on PB from a stranger?
None. But there is a "stranger" on PB who is happy to tell lawyers how the law should work, tell doctors how medicine should work, tell engineers how....
Well, you get the idea.
If PB was restricted to only experts opining on subjects it would be a very quiet place indeed. As for experts correcting non-experts. There is no reason that can't be done in a respectful manner without having to resort to snide remarks, is there?
There is a lot of magnesium in a Victor so they should just set it on fire.
I always think nostalgia for bombers is a consequence of people separating in their minds the smooth design and engineering from what they actually do (ie kill people ,sometimes civilians in a fieiy death) . As a natural conservationist I often support heritage but never understood the passion for keeping ruthless killing machines
I never like the Victor. From that era, the Buccaneer was always my favourite. Weirdly shaped, but it could fly..............
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
If there is ever a public inquiry then government messaging must be up for examination. The presentation of statistics has been appalling - often serving to stoke up fear and clearly motivated by a cover-our-arses mentality rather than tackling the pandemic in a rational way.
Some of the stats are so laggy as to be unusable. We declared 3,500 cases yesterday. But if you look at the cases by specimen date stats, the most recent date is the 9th with only 859. There's over 3,000 on the 7th and the 3rd but they don't really seem to be complete until they're a week old. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
If there is ever a public inquiry then government messaging must be up for examination. The presentation of statistics has been appalling - often serving to stoke up fear and clearly motivated by a cover-our-arses mentality rather than tackling the pandemic in a rational way.
Some of the stats are so laggy as to be unusable. We declared 3,500 cases yesterday. But if you look at the cases by specimen date stats, the most recent date is the 9th with only 859. There's over 3,000 on the 7th and the 3rd but they don't really seem to be complete until they're a week old. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases
On the other hand it was good that we carried out 225,000 tests yesterday as it has been stuck at bout 175,000 for some days, making a mockery of a "capacity of 375,000" when people couldn't get tests within 100 miles of home. There were still 38,000 unused pillar 1 and 2 tests yesterday though.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
If there is ever a public inquiry then government messaging must be up for examination. The presentation of statistics has been appalling - often serving to stoke up fear and clearly motivated by a cover-our-arses mentality rather than tackling the pandemic in a rational way.
Some of the stats are so laggy as to be unusable. We declared 3,500 cases yesterday. But if you look at the cases by specimen date stats, the most recent date is the 9th with only 859. There's over 3,000 on the 7th and the 3rd but they don't really seem to be complete until they're a week old. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases
On the other hand it was good that we carried out 225,000 tests yesterday as it has been stuck at bout 175,000 for some days, making a mockery of a "capacity of 375,000" when people couldn't get tests within 100 miles of home. There were still 38,000 unused pillar 1 and 2 tests yesterday though.
The 375,000 figure includes antibody tests, which no one is in a rush to get at the moment.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
I think it's an alternative past tense you only use with this phrase. You still say "hoist by his own petard" even where it's clearly in the indicative. Not sure why a small bomb should have its own version of the past tense, though.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
No, not if you're quoting Shakespeare:
There’s letters sealed; and my two schoolfellows, Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged, They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way And marshal me to knavery. Let it work, For ’tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petard; and ’t shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines And blow them at the moon. O, ’tis most sweet When in one line two crafts directly meet.
There is a lot of magnesium in a Victor so they should just set it on fire.
I always think nostalgia for bombers is a consequence of people separating in their minds the smooth design and engineering from what they actually do (ie kill people ,sometimes civilians in a fieiy death) . As a natural conservationist I often support heritage but never understood the passion for keeping ruthless killing machines
Tbf the Victor (thankfully since it was a nuclear bomber) never fired a shot in anger, unless you count it refuelling Vulcans during their Falklands missions.
From an historical pov it was Handley Page's last big military project after them being in at the start of UK aviation so significant, but there are already a few preserved Victor's kicking about therefore it would need a private individual with big pockets to get involved.
Mind you with the UK in a self fetishising mood, who knows?
There is a lot of magnesium in a Victor so they should just set it on fire.
I always think nostalgia for bombers is a consequence of people separating in their minds the smooth design and engineering from what they actually do (ie kill people ,sometimes civilians in a fieiy death) . As a natural conservationist I often support heritage but never understood the passion for keeping ruthless killing machines
I never like the Victor. From that era, the Buccaneer was always my favourite. Weirdly shaped, but it could fly..............
Indeed.
And the VC10 for me. Last time I was in Oxfordshire one flew lowish over me - a great treat.
Re the gate guardian being scrapped - quite possible it's in bad shape after being out in the open for so long. Which would mean even more £££££ to fix up.
OK, so i think i now understand what has been going on with these claims about the EU "threatening" to prevent food exports between GB and NI.
The relevant organisations in the EU have been becoming increasingly concerned about the failure of the UK to provide the necessary details about their future Food safety regime to enable what should be routine certification of the UK as a safe country for food imports to the EU (a slightly more tricky, and possibly related bit of this might be providing assurances that the UK can't be used by 3rd party countries as a backdoor to pass uncertified produce into the single market (eg. the cholorinated chicken argument).
These complaints were probably circulating at lower levels of Government but as they have become more urgent given the shortening deadlines, these have been escalated to the extent that Barnier has been asked to raise them within the bilateral trade talks. Bearing in mind that without such certification (which should be a formality) it will be illegal for UK to export food to the EU AT ALL.
A possible corollary of this (although may be disputed) is that Northern Ireland (which under the WA is subject to the EU legal regime) will also be potentially legally unable to accept food imports from GB.
When Barnier has, as requested as a result of the escalation, raised the issue of certification, the UK has thrown a wobbly and accused him of making outrageous threats to the integrity of the UK, and seeking to blackmail the UK as part of the negotiations.
What would the response of a sane sensible UK Government be to resolve the problem? Provide the necessary information to allow the EU certification to proceed and provide certainty for EU food import businesses and UK food exporters alike.
What has been the response of the current UK Government? Throw a wobbly about the integrity of the UK internal market and not address the far larger problem which will arise if the certification processes aren't completed in time (even though solving the large problem will remove the potential issue with Northern Ireland)
Why has the UK Government been dragging its feet on following the sane sensible path? It can only be something to do with the US trade negotiations. I can't think of any other reason.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
I believe that Mr Shakespeare used 'hoist' as a past tense equivalent to the modern 'hoisted' - 'For 'tis the sport to have the enginer/ Hoist with his own petard'.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
Pedant alert! An enclave necessarily needs a land border. They would merely be islands a fair way from the main body of the nation. Like Hawaii. Just about the only similarity.
One thing is clear - the EU aren't ever going to want us back.
MarqueeMark: what`s your view of Boris at the moment? I`m taken aback by some of the posts this morning. Especially this from Foxy:
"I think that there is a fourth character trait. For all his superficial charm, he cares nothing for other people, not even his own children or their mothers. That is a very dangerous thing in a leader, particularly so in the present times."
I`m no Boris fan but I`d never write something like that.
The vitriol of those suffering from Boris Derangement Syndrome has reached new heights today - he's sent his critics clean round the bend!
You may not like the tone, but is there any evidence that the criticisms of Johnson's personality are factually incorrect? Or that they are massive problems for a PM?
Remember that school report of BoJo that went viral a while back?
See what I mean? We're now digging through his school reports (!) to find fault (he was, by the way, a King's Scholar at Eton). Now, if we were to take the worst page of your school reports out of context, what might we find there? Be honest.
To my mind the serial adultery and child abandonment speaks for itself. When do you ever see a picture of Boris with his children from previous relationships?
Bozo and Brexit are too perfect together. Both are midlife crises being acted out in public.
I'll just quote from this article, since it sets out the abundant historical precedents quite nicely:
'David Lloyd George was a womaniser all his life and in 1943, when he was eighty and to the great disapproval of his daughters, he married Frances Stevenson who had been principal among his bevy of mistresses since 1913.'
'William Gladstone enjoyed the company of London prostitutes – claiming that his aim was their reform – even after he had been made Prime Minister. He had a strange religious temperament which went with a taste for being whipped.'
'Ramsay Macdonald, puritanical, rigorous and austere had a fifteen years’ secret relationship with Lady Margaret Sackville which only a few close friends knew anything about. He wrote her hundreds of intimate letters and what a biographer described as “explicitly romantic poems.”'
'Melbourne also had a long affair with the society beauty Caroline Norton. The husband demanded £1400 which Melbourne refused to pay. The affair continued.'
'The military genius the Duke of Wellington who delivered us from Napoleon was famously described in a contemporary biography as “a cad and a rutting stag.” He married Kitty Pakenham but found her unattractive so he ran a string of mistresses including a princess, many high-born ladies and an ambassador’s wife.'
Etc. etc. etc. But I'm sure their ages were full of tedious, pettifogging moralizers too.
Sure, particularly if you go back a century or more there are plenty of adulterous PMs. How many serially abandoned their children though?
I am old enough to remember when this sort of thing used to be considered a bad thing by Conservatives.
Boris is our Blond Whoremonger (a classical allusion I am sure he would understand). Alpha males are supposed to be able to fuck lots of women. It is the narrow conservative middle-class view of the family that is actually an anachronism.
With a small modification to Suetonius:
Urbani, servate uxores: moechum [flavom] adducimus. Aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum.
'Romans, watch your wives: it's our [blond] adulterer we're bringing home. That gold you borrowed here, Caesar? You've spaffed it all away in Gaul!'
So their argument is he should just break the law and send the food anyway? Interesting.
Nope, his argument is that the EU cannot enforce the blockade that the PM claims the EU is threatening. That makes such a threat - if it exists - entirely pointless. Thus, there is no need to break international law, to throw the rule of law itself into doubt and to break commitments made in a treaty to deal with it.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Sorry. But I have had an appalling night and need something to try and lighten my mood.
I enjoy my arguments with this particular poster and have told him so, despite disagreeing on much, though I occasionally wonder whether he is entirely serious in what he writes.
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
I think they have no choice but to be careful. Can you imagine the reaction if Boris stood up and said 'OK, everyone, relax - we'll have a safe vaccine in November, guaranteed' and for whatever reason it didn't happen? He'd be crucified. But as it is he gets it in the neck from one lot for being too reckless and from the other for being too cautious.
For once I'll throw a ring over your skittle. I think they've taken the view that it is advisable - knowing the next few months will be very virusey - to get the core regime defined and understood and in place for the duration. So, Rule of Six and Hands, Face, Space. Which makes sense imo. I'm not expecting heavy policing, I think it's mainly about clear messaging and behaviour nudging, so for me it does not feel like a serious assault on my personal freedom that I ought to be getting worried about. Of course if it turns out that it is heavily policed, or the regime is kept in place after vaccine or herd immunity, then I will put my hand up and admit I was wrong and I should have been worried in Sept 2020 when the signs of this government's profound illiberalism were there for all to see.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
Because?
I know you guys are big Wings fans nowadays, so..
'The reality could scarcely be any more distant from Tavish Scott’s transparently inaccurate posturings. International maritime law (specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which is signed and ratified by the UK) is extremely clear on what the situation would be with regard to Shetland and Orkney’s ownership of North Sea Oil in the context of an independent Scotland – it wouldn’t have any.
Under UNCLOS III, the islands would be regarded as an “enclave” residing wholly within Scotland’s “Exclusive Economic Zone” (see the paragraph “Continental shelf”), and as such would only have the right to resources within a 12-mile radius of their coastline – of which, in terms of oil, there are basically none.'
There is a lot of magnesium in a Victor so they should just set it on fire.
I always think nostalgia for bombers is a consequence of people separating in their minds the smooth design and engineering from what they actually do (ie kill people ,sometimes civilians in a fieiy death) . As a natural conservationist I often support heritage but never understood the passion for keeping ruthless killing machines
I never like the Victor. From that era, the Buccaneer was always my favourite. Weirdly shaped, but it could fly..............
My former colleague who commanded in the Cod war said that you could not hear the Buccaneer coming. Once it was over you it was frighteningly noisy.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
I believe that Mr Shakespeare used 'hoist' as a past tense equivalent to the modern 'hoisted' - 'For 'tis the sport to have the enginer/ Hoist with his own petard'.
I always thought Malc G must be a relic of an earlier age.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
I think it's an alternative past tense you only use with this phrase. You still say "hoist by his own petard" even where it's clearly in the indicative. Not sure why a small bomb should have its own version of the past tense, though.
Perhaps. I suspect it was an invention by Shakespeare to maintain the rhythm of the verse in the line from Hamlet, and it has stuck.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
Because?
Because its based on the same body of international law that guarantees the Falklands waters territorial sovereignty.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
Manifestos have always been a polite fiction in UK politics. We can all list occasions they've been ditched or ignored by all governments once in power. Am struggling to think of a government that directly dismantled the centrepiece of its manifesto, by doing precisely the opposite within 10 months of winning a majority. They can do it of course. But mandate is a strong word. They have a mandate to govern, absolutely. And govern absolutely seems to be what they intend.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
Did you make this argument when Labour used its majority to ratify the Lisbon Treaty?
No I could see at the time it would lead to the UK ultimately leaving the EU completely, so I was very happy with them going against their electoral pledge.
Did you claim their was no mandate for their actions at the time? I'm guessing you didn't.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
Does she need to malign him even when not he is not commenting? Just unnecessary.
I am not maligning him. He has freely admitted that he does not know about the law. He has asked questions about it and I have pointed him to a book that he might find interesting.
I am quite willing to apologise to him if he wants when he is on later and if I am. I have some serious matters to attend to shortly. I note that others have talked about me when I have not been on (and other posters too), not always in a flattering way and sometimes have made some really rude and personal remarks and not apologised.
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
I think they have no choice but to be careful. Can you imagine the reaction if Boris stood up and said 'OK, everyone, relax - we'll have a safe vaccine in November, guaranteed' and for whatever reason it didn't happen? He'd be crucified. But as it is he gets it in the neck from one lot for being too reckless and from the other for being too cautious.
For once I'll throw a ring over your skittle. I think they've taken the view that it is advisable - knowing the next few months will be very virusey - to get the core regime defined and understood and in place for the duration. So, Rule of Six and Hands, Face, Space. Which makes sense imo. I'm not expecting heavy policing, I think it's mainly about clear messaging and behaviour nudging, so for me it does not feel like a serious assault on my personal freedom that I ought to be getting worried about. Of course if it turns out that it is heavily policed, or the regime is kept in place after vaccine or herd immunity, then I will put my hand up and admit I was wrong and I should have been worried in Sept 2020 when the signs of this government's profound illiberalism were there for all to see.
Indeed. I think we have 6 months of treading carefully to come. I'm planning to buy a smart TV, upgrade my cable package and get a stock of Belgian beer in before the end of the transition period. I've signed up for a Russian class to give me something else to do at home and I might even get round to setting up that online bookshop to sell the books I never look at any more.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
I suspect that Johnson has read "The Art of the Deal".
"I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. For starters, I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."
"I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."
"I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can't be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you've got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops."
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
Would they be succeeding? They would be the ones staying and Scotland leaving.
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
Manifestos have always been a polite fiction in UK politics. We can all list occasions they've been ditched or ignored by all governments once in power. Am struggling to think of a government that directly dismantled the centrepiece of its manifesto, by doing precisely the opposite within 10 months of winning a majority. They can do it of course. But mandate is a strong word. They have a mandate to govern, absolutely. And govern absolutely seems to be what they intend.
The centrepiece of their manifesto was to get Brexit done. As far as I can see they are not dismantling that.
Unless you are suggesting their current actions would lead to the rejoining the EU (which is of course possible).
I am reliably told that November is still a likely date for first Ox-AZN vaccines in British arms. Front line workers only. Gradual roll out to other groups thereafter.
The puzzling thing to me is the government’s messaging. It’s all wrong. You might convince even me that the current wave of authoritarianism is ok if you are defining a near term end date with high probability.
Instead they talk about spending £100bn a year on testing as though the crisis is here forever. They speak only vaguely in highly caveated terms about a vaccine. They keep everyone in a state of constant fear about the “second wave”. An emotive and ill defined term that has entered our lexicon so suddenly that almost no one stops to think what it actually means.
The government have to get better at spelling out the temporary nature of this event, that without doubt we’ve already passed through the abyss and the brighter tomorrow is right around the corner.
Boris Johnson might not have died in that hospital room but the optimistic libertarian in him surely did.
Elsewhere on this thread this government is getting correctly panned over Brexit for either not thinking things through past the next couple of months or just lying about the obvious consequences of things shortly down the road.
I'm an optimistic libertarian as well but I don't see the point in spinning a cheerful message about how the end to the virus is just around the corner when nobody has the faintest idea how long it's going to take to get an end to the virus. People need to make plans for what's actually going to happen, and what's actually going to happen won't necessarily be what we want to happen.
It is a credible hypothesis that the virus seems to burn out when a given population hits a certain percentage of deaths per head, perhaps due to T Cell immunity that we are not testing for, and a bulge in excess mortality that will be largely (but far from entirely) smoothed our when looking at the period 2018-2022.
This hypothesis may of course prove to be entirely wrong. And even if it’s correct, it implies perhaps another equivalent dose of fatality as in 2020 (and possibly longcovid) before the UK as a whole gets to NYC levels.
But nevertheless it is not correct to say “no one has the faintest idea” when it will end. Our Prime Minister’s alma mater is sitting on unpublished data that apparently shows its vaccine has at least passable efficacy and is most likely safe enough for a wider roll out. And that the best informed money thinks such a rollout will begin this side of Xmas. Other vaccine approaches are racing through the process as well.
But instead on Cabinet PowerPoint slide #1 all we get is PUBLIC FEAR and on slide #2 VAPOURWARE £££.
It’s utterly bemusing to me.
Madrid had a higher percentage affected in the first wave than many British cities, yet now is in the throes of a second. That they achieved herd immunity in the first is obviously wrong.
Well the answer to that is that Madrid's deaths per capita are still well below those of NYC (depending upon how you record a covid death of course). Which means no, they did not quite get there whereas NYC did. It's not about "cases" because it's clear given how many asymptomatic cases are now being found when we look, that we missed most of them the first time around. Hence the focus on deaths/capita (which will also vary place to place for a variety of reasons.
I am aware that this is but one hypothesis. But there is more than one vaccine coming fast down the track which will soon render the discussion academic anyway.
I was not so optimistic on a quick vaccine earlier this year but seems I was wrong. The Medical Gandalf with his Rohan Cavalry is about to ride over the horizon and smite the army of darkness into the hillside.
Underpromise and overdeliver and all that seems to be the mantra. But for my taste, they've gone a bit far, given how much despair and in some cases clinical mental illness I see developing around my social group in real time due to the government's messaging.
I think they have no choice but to be careful. Can you imagine the reaction if Boris stood up and said 'OK, everyone, relax - we'll have a safe vaccine in November, guaranteed' and for whatever reason it didn't happen? He'd be crucified. But as it is he gets it in the neck from one lot for being too reckless and from the other for being too cautious.
For once I'll throw a ring over your skittle. I think they've taken the view that it is advisable - knowing the next few months will be very virusey - to get the core regime defined and understood and in place for the duration. So, Rule of Six and Hands, Face, Space. Which makes sense imo. I'm not expecting heavy policing, I think it's mainly about clear messaging and behaviour nudging, so for me it does not feel like a serious assault on my personal freedom that I ought to be getting worried about. Of course if it turns out that it is heavily policed, or the regime is kept in place after vaccine or herd immunity, then I will put my hand up and admit I was wrong and I should have been worried in Sept 2020 when the signs of this government's profound illiberalism were there for all to see.
Indeed. I think we have 6 months of treading carefully to come. I'm planning to buy a smart TV, upgrade my cable package and get a stock of Belgian beer in before the end of the transition period. I've signed up for a Russian class to give me something else to do at home and I might even get round to setting up that online bookshop to sell the books I never look at any more.
Hats off. That all sounds very constructive. Especially the Belgian beerfest.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
Would they be succeeding? They would be the ones staying and Scotland leaving.
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
If the UK reneges on the Withdrawal Agreement, what can the EU do about it? Sanctions which are the normal remedy and are allowed for in the WA are of limited effect if you haven't agreed any other arrangement at all.
There are two options available to the EU: hard border by default in Northern Ireland; customs border between Ireland and the rest of the Single Market. The UK government would like Ireland and the EU to choose the second as it lets them off the hook. Push come to shove I think Ireland and the EU would go the Single Market border route to avoid a land border in Ireland. That border would be more damaging to Northern Ireland, which is nominally part of the UK, than to the EU. But when confronted with madmen (theory) politicians in the UK you are left being the responsible ones.
But the EU will never compromise on the Withdrawal Agreement clauses. Total red line.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
What professionals are seeking professional advice on PB from a stranger?
None. But there is a "stranger" on PB who is happy to tell lawyers how the law should work, tell doctors how medicine should work, tell engineers how....
Well, you get the idea.
If PB was restricted to only experts opining on subjects it would be a very quiet place indeed. As for experts correcting non-experts. There is no reason that can't be done in a respectful manner without having to resort to snide remarks, is there?
On the subject of snide remarks, I see that someone here has this morning managed to include in a post of just two sentences the words "really desperate", "last resort", "Agent Pish", "desperate desperate", "circling the drain" and "whining".
Guess who? (without looking)
Insult and intimidation being used to disguise weakness of argument.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
What professionals are seeking professional advice on PB from a stranger?
None. But there is a "stranger" on PB who is happy to tell lawyers how the law should work, tell doctors how medicine should work, tell engineers how....
Well, you get the idea.
If PB was restricted to only experts opining on subjects it would be a very quiet place indeed. As for experts correcting non-experts. There is no reason that can't be done in a respectful manner without having to resort to snide remarks, is there?
On the subject of snide remarks, I see that someone here has this morning managed to include in a post of just two sentences the words "really desperate", "last resort", "Agent Pish", "desperate desperate", "circling the drain" and "whining".
Guess who? (without looking)
Insult and intimidation being used to disguise weakness of argument.
One thing is clear - the EU aren't ever going to want us back.
MarqueeMark: what`s your view of Boris at the moment? I`m taken aback by some of the posts this morning. Especially this from Foxy:
"I think that there is a fourth character trait. For all his superficial charm, he cares nothing for other people, not even his own children or their mothers. That is a very dangerous thing in a leader, particularly so in the present times."
I`m no Boris fan but I`d never write something like that.
The vitriol of those suffering from Boris Derangement Syndrome has reached new heights today - he's sent his critics clean round the bend!
You may not like the tone, but is there any evidence that the criticisms of Johnson's personality are factually incorrect? Or that they are massive problems for a PM?
Remember that school report of BoJo that went viral a while back?
See what I mean? We're now digging through his school reports (!) to find fault (he was, by the way, a King's Scholar at Eton). Now, if we were to take the worst page of your school reports out of context, what might we find there? Be honest.
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
Does she need to malign him even when not he is not commenting? Just unnecessary.
I am not maligning him. He has freely admitted that he does not know about the law. He has asked questions about it and I have pointed him to a book that he might find interesting.
I am quite willing to apologise to him if he wants when he is on later and if I am. I have some serious matters to attend to shortly. I note that others have talked about me when I have not been on (and other posters too), not always in a flattering way and sometimes have made some really rude and personal remarks and not apologised.
No need to apologise though its weird to be tagged in something when I wasn't involved.
I've never tried to advise anyone on their area of expertise. If I say my opinion it is what I think something should be, not how it is, I hope that makes sense. Please never take my opinions as professional advice its just an opinion.
I suspect that Johnson has read "The Art of the Deal".
"I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. For starters, I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."
"I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."
"I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can't be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you've got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops."
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
I'm not making a general point, it's a specific one. The GE was won just yesterday on the basis of the oven ready deal. It would not have been won on a no deal platform. This was THE issue of the election. So the winning party do not have a mandate to tear up the deal and do no deal instead. To pretend they do, that is the nonsense.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
Does she need to malign him even when not he is not commenting? Just unnecessary.
I am not maligning him. He has freely admitted that he does not know about the law. He has asked questions about it and I have pointed him to a book that he might find interesting.
I am quite willing to apologise to him if he wants when he is on later and if I am. I have some serious matters to attend to shortly. I note that others have talked about me when I have not been on (and other posters too), not always in a flattering way and sometimes have made some really rude and personal remarks and not apologised.
My main frustration about arguing with PT is the way that he will, say, get involved in an argument explicitly defending Boris Johnson's/the Government actions and their motives, whilst reserving the right to split from the Government (saying "i always defend my own views and nobody else's") if the outcome of the argument is to show that they are acting illogically with their proclaimed objectives.
So for example, and this has been very obvious recently, if a Government policy seems logically to lead to a United Ireland/Independent Scotland etc then he will declare it a bonus of the policy, since he is in favour of those things. The fact that neither of these things are (as far as we are aware - although one has doubts) remotely aligned with Government objectives means that you can comprehensively win the argument (via reductio ad absurdam) with PT as unquestioning defender of Government policy, but lose it, or at least leave it unresolved with PT arguing as himself. As is true with any argument where a basic framework for debate is not agreed in advance.
Of course, I think that the fact that PT disagreeing on end outcomes compared to the Govt should lead him to be wary of trusting them to persist once the consequences of their policies unravel, but this doesn't seem to bother him unduly.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
I'm not making a general point, it's a specific one. The GE was won just yesterday on the basis of the oven ready deal. It would not have been won on a no deal platform. This was THE issue of the election. So the winning party do not have a mandate to tear up the deal and do no deal instead. To pretend they do, that is the nonsense.
The issue is, there is nothing to stop them. Having got a majority, politicians can do as they like, as say Blair did when bringing in top-up fees despite a clear-cut manifesto commitment not to, or abolishing GM schools when he said he wouldn’t.
Would be quite ironic though in light of past events to see Cummson proroguing parliament twice in a week to override the Lords’ veto.
Edited for some salty language enforced by autocorrect.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
Because?
I know you guys are big Wings fans nowadays, so..
'The reality could scarcely be any more distant from Tavish Scott’s transparently inaccurate posturings. International maritime law (specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which is signed and ratified by the UK) is extremely clear on what the situation would be with regard to Shetland and Orkney’s ownership of North Sea Oil in the context of an independent Scotland – it wouldn’t have any.
Under UNCLOS III, the islands would be regarded as an “enclave” residing wholly within Scotland’s “Exclusive Economic Zone” (see the paragraph “Continental shelf”), and as such would only have the right to resources within a 12-mile radius of their coastline – of which, in terms of oil, there are basically none.'
Though we all know what BJ thinks about international law.
I was curious to read what provision of the UN treaty means they would be enclaves. The convention states that
"Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory."
With paragraph 3 being about islands that cannot support human habitation or economic life. The word enclave doesn't appear in it.
As for experts correcting non-experts. There is no reason that can't be done in a respectful manner without having to resort to snide remarks, is there?
Perhaps if the "correction" was not utter gibberish it would be accepted with good grace. If someone insisted to me that they had no experience of mathematics or physics and that "2 + 2 = banana" I would think they had taken leave of their senses or were trolling.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
Would they be succeeding? They would be the ones staying and Scotland leaving.
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
No, I'm saying if there's democratic proof ie politicians standing on a policy of having a referendum, there should definitely be one. If you're suggesting that the O&S component of any indy ref II should be considered separately from the Scotland wide result and would therefore automatically necessitate an O&S ref, I can think of a recent precedent which rather stomps on that possibility.
Off Topic - Here in Seattle, interest in politics has waned (temporarily) due to fact that the air we are currently breathing is (literally) poisonous.
According to Washington State Department of Ecology online, interactive air quality map ( https://enviwa.ecology.wa.gov/home/map ) readings from monitoring stations in the City of Seattle currently range from low of 284 to high of 305.
Here is the measurement scale: 0 - 50 Good 51 - 100 Moderate 101 - 150 Unhealthy for sensitive groups 151 - 200 Unhealthy 201 - 300 Very unhealthy 301 - 500 Hazardous
So right now just breathing is a hazard to one's health.
BUT we are in better shape than some places in eastern WA, for example Walla Walla (435) and Kennewick (500). And my guess is that many places in Oregon are worse than Seattle as well.
Today (Saturday) could be even worse than yesterday, which was bad enough. Situation not expected to ease until at least Sunday, more likely Monday.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
What event? The need for food certification was spoken about as a risk by the government before Johnson's deal was negotiated.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
Would they be succeeding? They would be the ones staying and Scotland leaving.
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
Would they be succeeding? They would be the ones staying and Scotland leaving.
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
No, I'm saying if there's democratic proof ie politicians standing on a policy of having a referendum, there should definitely be one. If you're suggesting that the O&S component of any indy ref II should be considered separately from the Scotland wide result and would therefore automatically necessitate an O&S ref, I can think of a recent precedent which rather stomps on that possibility.
Actually no I was suggesting offering them a separate referendum in the event of a Scottish leave vote if they wanted one.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
I don't really care about the oil, I just think if the people on the islands would prefer to stay in the rUK then they should be given that chance.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
That's an awful lot of what might or might not happens. Are you saying that O&S people should be given an automatic right of succession without any intervening democratic consultation?
Would they be succeeding? They would be the ones staying and Scotland leaving.
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
Don't really know why, but I love using this expression, I suppose it's the highly descriptive words 'hoist' and 'petard' even if few know what the latter means. I particularly enjoy putting the emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. pronouncing it PETard, although this is probably incorrect, I find that few will challenge me on this.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
What professionals are seeking professional advice on PB from a stranger?
None. But there is a "stranger" on PB who is happy to tell lawyers how the law should work, tell doctors how medicine should work, tell engineers how....
Well, you get the idea.
If PB was restricted to only experts opining on subjects it would be a very quiet place indeed. As for experts correcting non-experts. There is no reason that can't be done in a respectful manner without having to resort to snide remarks, is there?
On the subject of snide remarks, I see that someone here has this morning managed to include in a post of just two sentences the words "really desperate", "last resort", "Agent Pish", "desperate desperate", "circling the drain" and "whining".
Guess who? (without looking)
Insult and intimidation being used to disguise weakness of argument.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
Don't really know why, but I love using this expression, I suppose it's the highly descriptive words 'hoist' and 'petard' even if few know what the latter means. I particularly enjoy putting the emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. pronouncing it PETard, although this is probably incorrect, I find that few will challenge me on this.
You put the emPHASis wherever you like, me old china.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
I'm not making a general point, it's a specific one. The GE was won just yesterday on the basis of the oven ready deal. It would not have been won on a no deal platform. This was THE issue of the election. So the winning party do not have a mandate to tear up the deal and do no deal instead. To pretend they do, that is the nonsense.
Lol nonsense, he won on a platform of getting Brexit done.
I heard absolutely no one mention the "oven ready deal" during the election at all.
Do you really think Corbyn would have won the election if it wasn't for the genius "oven ready deal" campaign that the Tories apparently ran?
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
This has come up a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if the folk n O&S vote for pols who stand on a policy of having a referendum on self determination, they should be able to hold one.
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
Pedant alert! An enclave necessarily needs a land border. They would merely be islands a fair way from the main body of the nation. Like Hawaii. Just about the only similarity.
If the UK reneges on the Withdrawal Agreement, what can the EU do about it? Sanctions which are the normal remedy and are allowed for in the WA are of limited effect if you haven't agreed any other arrangement at all.
There are two options available to the EU: hard border by default in Northern Ireland; customs border between Ireland and the rest of the Single Market. The UK government would like Ireland and the EU to choose the second as it lets them off the hook. Push come to shove I think Ireland and the EU would go the Single Market border route to avoid a land border in Ireland. That border would be more damaging to Northern Ireland, which is nominally part of the UK, than to the EU. But when confronted with madmen (theory) politicians in the UK you are left being the responsible ones.
But the EU will never compromise on the Withdrawal Agreement clauses. Total red line.
The EU could check all goods vehicles arriving directly from Ireland into the EU that have UK licence plates, with infrequent spot checks on other vehicles. The check would be on origin of goods. Penalties would be very high on undeclared goods from rUK to act as a disincentive. You're right that it would let the UK off the hook.
It also wouldn't protect the RoI from non-standard and non-tariff goods from rUK coming across the unchecked internal border thereby undercutting Irish producers. The Irish government could however make that illegal and subject to confiscation and penalties on suppliers of such goods.
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
Don't really know why, but I love using this expression, I suppose it's the highly descriptive words 'hoist' and 'petard' even if few know what the latter means. I particularly enjoy putting the emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. pronouncing it PETard, although this is probably incorrect, I find that few will challenge me on this.
Try pronouncing it "pee-tard" and see what kind of reaction you get from your listeners. Or alternatively "pit-hart" or something equally affected.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
Does she need to malign him even when not he is not commenting? Just unnecessary.
I am not maligning him. He has freely admitted that he does not know about the law. He has asked questions about it and I have pointed him to a book that he might find interesting.
I am quite willing to apologise to him if he wants when he is on later and if I am. I have some serious matters to attend to shortly. I note that others have talked about me when I have not been on (and other posters too), not always in a flattering way and sometimes have made some really rude and personal remarks and not apologised.
No need to apologise though its weird to be tagged in something when I wasn't involved.
I've never tried to advise anyone on their area of expertise. If I say my opinion it is what I think something should be, not how it is, I hope that makes sense. Please never take my opinions as professional advice its just an opinion.
Thank you. I promise not to tag you if you’re not on. My comment was not meant maliciously but sorry anyway.
I will read later if I can - but I don’t have a Spectator subscription. I have seen summaries which suggest that he is saying that a breach of contract is not a breach of the rule of law. And also that if Parliament legislates for it, that too is not a breach of the rule of law.
But will comment later, if you don’t mind. Stuff to do.
I do have a line I'd draw. For example, if the government were to introduce policed curfews I would say, "Ok, this is going too far. The need to manage coronavirus until we get a vaccine or herd immunity does not justify such a heavy-handed illiberal measure."
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
Don't really know why, but I love using this expression, I suppose it's the highly descriptive words 'hoist' and 'petard' even if few know what the latter means. I particularly enjoy putting the emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. pronouncing it PETard, although this is probably incorrect, I find that few will challenge me on this.
Try pronouncing it "pee-tard" and see what kind of reaction you get from your listeners. Or alternatively "pit-hart" or something equally affected.
In this case, it would be more truthful to say the engineer has been ‘hoist by his own retard.’
My daughter works at a sixth form college. Students are gradually returning; term begins properly on Monday for 3,000 students. She received an email from the Principal this morning; one student has tested positive. He had been at a house party with many other students a week ago, several of whom have been contacted and are showing symptoms. They are now trying to get them all tested, along with staff and other students who have been in contact. They are struggling to get tests. This is in an area with, currently, low infection rates.
No criticism from me of these young people. But I'm far from convinced that the solution advocated by some on here, that they stay away from elderly/vulnerable people, is feasible, especially as some will live with parents or others who are vulnerable. I don't have an answer, but I do expect cases to rocket upwards once colleges and universities are fully operational as well as schools.
Great piece but I disagree about the chances of No Deal. I think it remains unlikely. I think the politics steers towards a deal that prolongs close alignment beyond 1st Jan 2021.
However let’s go with the hardly outrageous proposition that I am wrong and David Herdson is right. In which case there’s a problem. Which is that No Deal Brexit has no domestic mandate. I don’t mean it doesn’t respect the Referendum result. We voted to leave and it is leaving. It’s leaving good and proper. No issue there.
But the most recent national democratic event was the GE in December 2019. Exactly 8 months ago, that was, and it gave Boris Johnson a thumping “Oh yes please!” to the question he asked the British people, which was – “Do you want to get Brexit done and finished on the basis of my oven ready deal with the EU?”
He knew he could not win an election on a No Deal platform. He knew if he’d asked the question - “Do you want to crash out of the EU onto basic WTO terms and get into a serious wrangle about the Irish border with the EU?” – the answer would have been “Are you kidding? Get a grip.”
So, Ok, having won power by nefarious means – by lying to the EU and to the public - he can now use it to do what he wants, which includes pretending that this abuse of the democratic process did not happen. But if he does it will be a bit off and that’s putting it mildly.
The referendum mandate was to leave the EU. That was delivered in full on 31st January. The referendum is literally over and complete. What instead we should be talking about when it comes to a mandate is what we do now that we have successfully left the EU.
The only mandate is for Boris Johnson's Withdrawal Agreement. The one he is now ripping up. So when we get into a Commons vs Lords battle the Lords will be able to put the Parliament Acts and conventions into reverse - it is they who are acting to defend the democratic mandate of a government trying to reverse it.
Oh geez not this again.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
You say this because you agree with what they are doing rather than out of principle. Nevertheless your opening sentence is spot on if you change just one word. Replace 'mandate' with 'power'.
By this logic there is never going to be a "mandate" for anyone in power to ever react to any event that might happen after an election has taken place. A new election will be required each time.
It's nonsense.
I'm not making a general point, it's a specific one. The GE was won just yesterday on the basis of the oven ready deal. It would not have been won on a no deal platform. This was THE issue of the election. So the winning party do not have a mandate to tear up the deal and do no deal instead. To pretend they do, that is the nonsense.
The issue is, there is nothing to stop them. Having got a majority, politicians can do as they like, as say Blair did when bringing in top-up fees despite a clear-cut manifesto commitment not to, or abolishing GM schools when he said he wouldn’t.
Would be quite ironic though in light of past events to see Cummson proroguing parliament twice in a week to override the Lords’ veto.
Edited for some salty language enforced by autocorrect.
Yes, they have the power as opposed to a mandate. And yes there have been examples before of a winning party going against their manifesto. But here we have a situation whereby the election was only Dec last year and this was THE issue upon which it was fought. So as abuses of the democratic process go, this is a little bit special.
Do the objectors not remember what it was like a few months ago when people were dying like flies and half the public was calling the Government murderers? Do they want to go back to that at Christmas, or could we occasionally learn something and move on?
Excellent header David. A thorough summary of how sh*t Johnson's government is.
Here, here - it is a brilliantly written thread intro.
Pedant alert, it is " Hear Hear "
Consider me chastised
In a most gentle and polite fashion. I await being hoist by my own petard at some future date.
Should it not be 'hoisted' rather than 'hoist' - I mean you did ask
He's using the subjunctive, no? Smartarse, but correct, I think.
Don't really know why, but I love using this expression, I suppose it's the highly descriptive words 'hoist' and 'petard' even if few know what the latter means. I particularly enjoy putting the emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. pronouncing it PETard, although this is probably incorrect, I find that few will challenge me on this.
Try pronouncing it "pee-tard" and see what kind of reaction you get from your listeners. Or alternatively "pit-hart" or something equally affected.
In this case, it would be more truthful to say the engineer has been ‘hoist by his own retard.’
IF you really want to sound moronic (or just weird as shit) say "pee-turd" which could be a turn o' phrase a REAL sailor might actually appreciate.
If she was disbarred, would she be forced to resign? The A-G has to be a lawyer?
Lol - doubt that is going to happen.
But yes a non-lawyer cannot be the government’s principal law officer, though with this government who can say?
Our very own @Philip_Thompson could have a go in such a case. He has very strong views on the law without knowing anything about it, which sounds like the perfect combination.
Stop poking the tiger
Yes - making digs against posters not even present suggests an underlying nastiness the site could do without.
Cyclefree was just being mischievous.
It's getting quite common these days though, from a number of people. IMO PB is a better place when we are discussing the issues, not the people commenting on them.
She has a point though. He has a tendency to advise professionals in their areas of expertise whilst having no experience or knowledge in those areas himself - and he freely admits it.
Does she need to malign him even when not he is not commenting? Just unnecessary.
I am not maligning him. He has freely admitted that he does not know about the law. He has asked questions about it and I have pointed him to a book that he might find interesting.
I am quite willing to apologise to him if he wants when he is on later and if I am. I have some serious matters to attend to shortly. I note that others have talked about me when I have not been on (and other posters too), not always in a flattering way and sometimes have made some really rude and personal remarks and not apologised.
No need to apologise though its weird to be tagged in something when I wasn't involved.
I've never tried to advise anyone on their area of expertise. If I say my opinion it is what I think something should be, not how it is, I hope that makes sense. Please never take my opinions as professional advice its just an opinion.
Thank you. I promise not to tag you if you’re not on. My comment was not meant maliciously but sorry anyway.
I will read later if I can - but I don’t have a Spectator subscription. I have seen summaries which suggest that he is saying that a breach of contract is not a breach of the rule of law. And also that if Parliament legislates for it, that too is not a breach of the rule of law.
But will comment later, if you don’t mind. Stuff to do.
Marvellous to see a Damascene conversion from the 'oil is worthless' brigade. They've evidently overlooked the fact that Orkney's geographical share of N.Sea oil would be minimal in whichever secessionist fanatsy their cooking up.
Sure, but how would the Scottish nationalists feel if the Shetlands and Orkney chose to remain in the rUK if Scotland left?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
Pretty stupid question given they are part of Scotland and not England. If at some later stage after Scotland goes independent they wanted to go independent then there would be no reason why not other than the fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources. They would only be entitled to a spoonful of the oil reserves. Given remoteness etc it would be very very difficult for them to fund transport to allow them to get food supplies never mind anything else. It is a pathetic , stupid unionist pants wetter question.
Comments
Blimey.
https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disasters-and-incidents/2020/official-information-on-the-new-coronavirus/restriktioner-och-forbud
PS: Expect soon she will be whining about how we are too small and too stupid to have a currency.
From an historical pov it was Handley Page's last big military project after them being in at the start of UK aviation so significant, but there are already a few preserved Victor's kicking about therefore it would need a private individual with big pockets to get involved.
Mind you with the UK in a self fetishising mood, who knows?
Would they accept it to gain independence or feel that it is unacceptable?
Perhaps another referendum, but giving the islands a choice to stay in the rUK after a successful leave vote could be a compromise.
Boris is our Blond Whoremonger (a classical allusion I am sure he would understand). Alpha males are supposed to be able to fuck lots of women. It is the narrow conservative middle-class view of the family that is actually an anachronism.
The Tories won a landslide less than a year ago, they have the mandate to do what they want until the next election.
This whole "There's no mandate" nonsense every time anything has changed has got to stop.
Well, you get the idea.
And right now I would answer as follows -
(i) Unlikely. But more likely than a month ago.
(ii) Bad. Perhaps slightly less bad than in April but still bad. Do not want it.
Eleanor Roosevelt
https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1304693694151434240
I also believe if O&S chose to be a non-contiguous enclave (apols if that's not the right terminology) of rUK rather than independent, their rights to NS oil would be restricted to a 12 mile limit.
No, not if you're quoting Shakespeare:
There’s letters sealed; and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work,
For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and ’t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon. O, ’tis most sweet
When in one line two crafts directly meet.
— Prince Hamlet, in Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4.
https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1304722309576560641?s=20
And the VC10 for me. Last time I was in Oxfordshire one flew lowish over me - a great treat.
Re the gate guardian being scrapped - quite possible it's in bad shape after being out in the open for so long. Which would mean even more £££££ to fix up.
OK, so i think i now understand what has been going on with these claims about the EU "threatening" to prevent food exports between GB and NI.
The relevant organisations in the EU have been becoming increasingly concerned about the failure of the UK to provide the necessary details about their future Food safety regime to enable what should be routine certification of the UK as a safe country for food imports to the EU (a slightly more tricky, and possibly related bit of this might be providing assurances that the UK can't be used by 3rd party countries as a backdoor to pass uncertified produce into the single market (eg. the cholorinated chicken argument).
These complaints were probably circulating at lower levels of Government but as they have become more urgent given the shortening deadlines, these have been escalated to the extent that Barnier has been asked to raise them within the bilateral trade talks. Bearing in mind that without such certification (which should be a formality) it will be illegal for UK to export food to the EU AT ALL.
A possible corollary of this (although may be disputed) is that Northern Ireland (which under the WA is subject to the EU legal regime) will also be potentially legally unable to accept food imports from GB.
When Barnier has, as requested as a result of the escalation, raised the issue of certification, the UK has thrown a wobbly and accused him of making outrageous threats to the integrity of the UK, and seeking to blackmail the UK as part of the negotiations.
What would the response of a sane sensible UK Government be to resolve the problem? Provide the necessary information to allow the EU certification to proceed and provide certainty for EU food import businesses and UK food exporters alike.
What has been the response of the current UK Government? Throw a wobbly about the integrity of the UK internal market and not address the far larger problem which will arise if the certification processes aren't completed in time (even though solving the large problem will remove the potential issue with Northern Ireland)
Why has the UK Government been dragging its feet on following the sane sensible path? It can only be something to do with the US trade negotiations. I can't think of any other reason.
It's nonsense.
An enclave necessarily needs a land border.
They would merely be islands a fair way from the main body of the nation.
Like Hawaii.
Just about the only similarity.
With a small modification to Suetonius:
Urbani, servate uxores: moechum [flavom] adducimus.
Aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum.
'Romans, watch your wives: it's our [blond] adulterer we're bringing home.
That gold you borrowed here, Caesar? You've spaffed it all away in Gaul!'
I enjoy my arguments with this particular poster and have told him so, despite disagreeing on much, though I occasionally wonder whether he is entirely serious in what he writes.
'The reality could scarcely be any more distant from Tavish Scott’s transparently inaccurate posturings. International maritime law (specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which is signed and ratified by the UK) is extremely clear on what the situation would be with regard to Shetland and Orkney’s ownership of North Sea Oil in the context of an independent Scotland – it wouldn’t have any.
Under UNCLOS III, the islands would be regarded as an “enclave” residing wholly within Scotland’s “Exclusive Economic Zone” (see the paragraph “Continental shelf”), and as such would only have the right to resources within a 12-mile radius of their coastline – of which, in terms of oil, there are basically none.'
https://wingsoverscotland.com/pity-not-hate/
Though we all know what BJ thinks about international law.
I don't think it's really fair to expect them to elect politicians on a platform of something that might not ever happen.
If Scotland leaves before they get their say then there is no guarantee that they will offer the islands a referendum and no feasible way they could get one even if they voted 100% for such a policy.
Oh... International law.
Am struggling to think of a government that directly dismantled the centrepiece of its manifesto, by doing precisely the opposite within 10 months of winning a majority.
They can do it of course.
But mandate is a strong word. They have a mandate to govern, absolutely.
And govern absolutely seems to be what they intend.
Did you claim their was no mandate for their actions at the time? I'm guessing you didn't.
I am quite willing to apologise to him if he wants when he is on later and if I am. I have some serious matters to attend to shortly. I note that others have talked about me when I have not been on (and other posters too), not always in a flattering way and sometimes have made some really rude and personal remarks and not apologised.
"I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. For starters, I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."
"I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."
"I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can't be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you've got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops."
https://www.axios.com/how-9-art-of-the-deal-quotes-explain-the-trump-presidency-1513300122-183eaed4-4c48-4527-a7ed-c57dd143865a.html
The referendum would the democratic consultation. Are you saying that it is possible they would wish to leave in a referendum, but shouldn't be given the option?
Unless you are suggesting their current actions would lead to the rejoining the EU (which is of course possible).
There are two options available to the EU: hard border by default in Northern Ireland; customs border between Ireland and the rest of the Single Market. The UK government would like Ireland and the EU to choose the second as it lets them off the hook. Push come to shove I think Ireland and the EU would go the Single Market border route to avoid a land border in Ireland. That border would be more damaging to Northern Ireland, which is nominally part of the UK, than to the EU. But when confronted with madmen (theory) politicians in the UK you are left being the responsible ones.
But the EU will never compromise on the Withdrawal Agreement clauses. Total red line.
Guess who? (without looking)
Insult and intimidation being used to disguise weakness of argument.
I've never tried to advise anyone on their area of expertise. If I say my opinion it is what I think something should be, not how it is, I hope that makes sense. Please never take my opinions as professional advice its just an opinion.
I'm curious what you think of this article Cyclefree - it is basically my line of thinking, but more elegantly written by a QC: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-boris-is-not-breaching-the-rule-of-law-here-s-why
So for example, and this has been very obvious recently, if a Government policy seems logically to lead to a United Ireland/Independent Scotland etc then he will declare it a bonus of the policy, since he is in favour of those things. The fact that neither of these things are (as far as we are aware - although one has doubts) remotely aligned with Government objectives means that you can comprehensively win the argument (via reductio ad absurdam) with PT as unquestioning defender of Government policy, but lose it, or at least leave it unresolved with PT arguing as himself. As is true with any argument where a basic framework for debate is not agreed in advance.
Of course, I think that the fact that PT disagreeing on end outcomes compared to the Govt should lead him to be wary of trusting them to persist once the consequences of their policies unravel, but this doesn't seem to bother him unduly.
Would be quite ironic though in light of past events to see Cummson proroguing parliament twice in a week to override the Lords’ veto.
Edited for some salty language enforced by autocorrect.
"Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an
island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory."
With paragraph 3 being about islands that cannot support human habitation or economic life. The word enclave doesn't appear in it.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
Off Topic - Here in Seattle, interest in politics has waned (temporarily) due to fact that the air we are currently breathing is (literally) poisonous.
According to Washington State Department of Ecology online, interactive air quality map ( https://enviwa.ecology.wa.gov/home/map ) readings from monitoring stations in the City of Seattle currently range from low of 284 to high of 305.
Here is the measurement scale:
0 - 50 Good
51 - 100 Moderate
101 - 150 Unhealthy for sensitive groups
151 - 200 Unhealthy
201 - 300 Very unhealthy
301 - 500 Hazardous
So right now just breathing is a hazard to one's health.
BUT we are in better shape than some places in eastern WA, for example Walla Walla (435) and Kennewick (500). And my guess is that many places in Oregon are worse than Seattle as well.
Today (Saturday) could be even worse than yesterday, which was bad enough. Situation not expected to ease until at least Sunday, more likely Monday.
It’s ‘seceding’ not ‘succeeding.’
We're talking about how they might feel after a leave vote for Scotland in the future.
If an opinion poll from 2013 puts an end to the matter in your mind then an actual referendum in 2014 must do even more so.
This.
Malc's never snide, always goes in with studs up.
Keeping well?
I heard absolutely no one mention the "oven ready deal" during the election at all.
Do you really think Corbyn would have won the election if it wasn't for the genius "oven ready deal" campaign that the Tories apparently ran?
It also wouldn't protect the RoI from non-standard and non-tariff goods from rUK coming across the unchecked internal border thereby undercutting Irish producers. The Irish government could however make that illegal and subject to confiscation and penalties on suppliers of such goods.
I will read later if I can - but I don’t have a Spectator subscription. I have seen summaries which suggest that he is saying that a breach of contract is not a breach of the rule of law. And also that if Parliament legislates for it, that too is not a breach of the rule of law.
But will comment later, if you don’t mind. Stuff to do.
I do have a line I'd draw. For example, if the government were to introduce policed curfews I would say, "Ok, this is going too far. The need to manage coronavirus until we get a vaccine or herd immunity does not justify such a heavy-handed illiberal measure."
yours ever, K
No criticism from me of these young people. But I'm far from convinced that the solution advocated by some on here, that they stay away from elderly/vulnerable people, is feasible, especially as some will live with parents or others who are vulnerable. I don't have an answer, but I do expect cases to rocket upwards once colleges and universities are fully operational as well as schools.
It is a pathetic , stupid unionist pants wetter question.