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.
It says below that enclaves can exist within territorial waters which suggests an island. On further research a future rUK O&S may be an exclave, but apparently exclaves can also be enclaves. At that point I lost the will to live.
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?
The objectors probably just realise that making ridiculous and spurious laws where you say things that are obviously the same are safe in one case and unsafe in another, such as they can all work together in an office but cant safely have a pint together after, brings any regulation into such disrepute that it is likely people are just going to stick two fingers up at you and ignore it.
I supported the initial lockdown when we thought it was going to be 10 to 12 weeks....now it has been 6 months with no end in sight this year and maybe not most of next year. It is time to admit we cannot continue 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.
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.
Alas cannot read the article.
If you load the window in incognito mode it should load.
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?
To both of you:
It’s ‘seceding’ not ‘succeeding.’
Going downhill on here nowadays
I suppose if i can try to be succinct the secession might be successful but it's all a bit 'east fife four forfar five' for me!
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.
It says below that enclaves can exist within territorial waters which suggests an island. On further research a future rUK O&S may be an exclave, but apparently exclaves can also be enclaves. At that point I lost the will to live.
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.”
Ummmm...I would rephrase that, Malc.
Blame Aristotle Ydoethur, I only borrowed his phrase. Though on second reading it is rather dodgy sounding nowadays
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.
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
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?
To both of you:
It’s ‘seceding’ not ‘succeeding.’
Going downhill on here nowadays
I suppose if i can try to be succinct the secession might be successful but it's all a bit 'east fife four forfar five' for me!
Re: current air quality in Pacific Northwest, I was right - the Oregon air quality map is even more frightful than the WA map.
Map for our northern neighbor British Columbia is very interesting. Bad air quality in metro Vancounver and rest of Lower Mainland, also for Victoria & southern Vancouver Island.
BUT good air just to the north and east, including BC Okanagan. Which happens to be just north of the WA State Okanogan (note spelling difference) which has been devastated by fires that have raged for a week and consumed hundreds of thousands of acres of forest and whatever else is in their path.
Note that a few years ago, when (for the first time in my 30-year experience out here) Seattle was chocking on similar smoke, it was coming mainly from the BC Interior, which so far has been largely spared this fire season.
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.
It says below that enclaves can exist within territorial waters which suggests an island. On further research a future rUK O&S may be an exclave, but apparently exclaves can also be enclaves. At that point I lost the will to live.
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.
Much truth here. And it's why we - Philip and I - recently set up the Panel of PB Moderates. 12 people on it, good mix of Lab/Con/LD/SNP and L/R. Sub optimal on ethnic and gender diversity but it's about as diverse as we could get given the pool we were fishing in.
Anyway, point being, if you find yourself embroiled in a big argument with somebody (which could of course be Philip himself) and it starts to get very convoluted and frustrating, you can call a halt and say -"I refer to the Panel for a verdict."
And that's it. They review the exchange and pronounce. No appeal.
It's been working great. We've used it twice already and it has revealed that -
Labour's 2015 manifesto under Ed Miliband WAS a moderate offering. (11/1 vote).
Actually I forget the second referral, but there was one.
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.
Alas cannot read the article.
If you load the window in incognito mode it should load.
Is that what they teach you in MI5 Tory spy school
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
They would probably end up bankrupt and come running to the English to bail them out.
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.
Alas cannot read the article.
The argument is that it is not a violation of the rule of law to break a contract and that's all international treaties are. The problems begin when you consider who the guarantors of the rule of law are. In other words, the government gets to decide. But if the government takes that power we no lomger live in a democracy.
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
The Scilly's made out swell on their own. Until that is the socalistic-collectivists outlawed wrecking.
For which I personally blame Sir Cloudesley Shovell.
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?
The objectors probably just realise that making ridiculous and spurious laws where you say things that are obviously the same are safe in one case and unsafe in another, such as they can all work together in an office but cant safely have a pint together after, brings any regulation into such disrepute that it is likely people are just going to stick two fingers up at you and ignore it.
I supported the initial lockdown when we thought it was going to be 10 to 12 weeks....now it has been 6 months with no end in sight this year and maybe not most of next year. It is time to admit we cannot continue this.
The rules aren't absolutely consistent precisely because they are a balancing act, so that you get the most virus suppression for the least economic harm. Absolute consistency would require either an absolute lockdown or an absolute release, neither of which is a rational option at this stage.
As mentioned earlier in the thread by moonshine - a strong lockdown sceptic - we are still on track to begin vaccinations in November. With a second wave underway here and in many other countries, which has a high probability of overlapping with the flu season, all that 'going herd' now will achieve is to kill or chronically injure a lot of people who could otherwise have been saved.
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.
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.
Alas cannot read the article.
If you load the window in incognito mode it should load.
That sounds like a breach of something, you naughty boy 😉.
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.
Alas cannot read the article.
If you load the window in incognito mode it should load.
That sounds like a breach of something, you naughty boy 😉.
Will try later.
I think you can use Opera browser to achieve the same result as incognito.
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
You don't like real facts do you , can you repudiate my statement unlike the fact that I have proven your mince to be false time and time and time again.
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
You don't like real facts do you , can you repudiate my statement unlike the fact that I have proven your mince to be false time and time and time again.
Which "facts" did you cite? You have a well known and frequently demonstrated aversion to them - as do many of your kindred spirits.
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.
The Faroes say “hej”,
Sounds great , chase puffins all day. There's a shortage of women in the Faroe Islands. So men are increasingly seeking wives from Thailand and the Philippines.
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.
Alas cannot read the article.
The argument is that it is not a violation of the rule of law to break a contract and that's all international treaties are. The problems begin when you consider who the guarantors of the rule of law are. In other words, the government gets to decide. But if the government takes that power we no lomger live in a democracy.
Replace 'Boris' with 'Tony Blair' in this scenario and I think it's fair to say that article would never have been written.
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?
One fo the effects of the Covid pandemic seems to be to affect the memory of those who haven't even had it......
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
They would probably end up bankrupt and come running to the English to bail them out.
Another Little Englander zealot crawls out from under his rock. Remind me who owes £2 trillion versus Scotland's £0, Einstein.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
If malcy thinks Orkney and Shetland only has a spoonful of oil, that will be because greater Scotland only has two spoonfuls left.... There won't even be enough to meet abandonment obligations. Better hope those sinking funds haven't, er, sunk....
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 fact that they would never survive on their own given their size and resources.
Too wee, too poor.....remind me if you've pooh-poohed such arguments before.
They would probably end up bankrupt and come running to the English to bail them out.
Another Little Englander zealot crawls out from under his rock. Remind me who owes £2 trillion versus Scotland's £0, Einstein.
Lol sure the debt Gordon Brown racked up has nothing to do with Scotland.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
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.
Keeping well?
Yes thanks PTP, trust you are well too. Looking forward to the new footy season starting today and I have some tasty season long bets in place. At one time I'd have posted them on here but PB.com long ceased to be a meaningful betting site, politically or otherwise and most of the smart cookies in that regard have long departed the site, more's the pity. No meet-ups, no prize money competitions any more, fings ain't what they used to be.
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.
The Faroes say “hej”,
Sounds great , chase puffins all day. There's a shortage of women in the Faroe Islands. So men are increasingly seeking wives from Thailand and the Philippines.
I’m sure you wish them every happiness as they snuggle together ( while waiting for global warming to really kick in?)
Our local amusement of Butt Hole Road was sadly renamed because the residents complained that companies kept refusing to provide services because they thought it was a joke.
Still, there have were worse names in the past. Magpie Lane in Oxford for one...
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
They would have still won easily.
People trusted Boris to sort it out one way or another.
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.
The Faroes say “hej”,
Sounds great , chase puffins all day. There's a shortage of women in the Faroe Islands. So men are increasingly seeking wives from Thailand and the Philippines.
I’m sure you wish them every happiness as they snuggle together ( while waiting for global warming to really kick in?)
I would miss my beer too much, but everyone to their own.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Been busy for a few hours, but entertained by the apparent argument that has broken out over my earlier comments about mandates. Why is this relevant now? Because the Commons is about to get blocked by the Lords in its bid to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement.
"Get Brexit Done" was the slogan. And it was done. We left on 31st January. So there is no need to debate that bit of the Tories mandate as it has already been enacted in full - we left the EU.
What is relevant now is what we do now that we have left the EU. The Tories ran on a platform that to "Get Brexit Done" they would enact their Withdrawal Agreement. They did. DAlexander cannot say there is no argument about mandates - the PM's withdrawal agreement was literally the entire election campaign.
Nor can they argue that events (dear boy) have forced the change. Absolutely nothing new has happened. So we have the government of the day wanting to directly contradict its own policy which was the entire reason why we even had an election. Yes it has the power in the Commons to do whatever it likes. But it requires the consent of the Lords to make law. And they are not going to give their consent. They will simply point out that they are defending the legislative programme proposed by the government and elected by the people. As the government apparently needs this u-turn it has a big problem - the Lords will not yield and cannot be forced under existing laws or conventions.
This one will be the subject of politics classes for generations. Ordinarily its the unelected Lords trying to block the Commons carrying out the will of the people. This time its the unelected Lords trying to protect the will of the people over the MPs who have changed their minds. Should be fun...
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
They would have still won easily.
People trusted Boris to sort it out one way or another.
Nope. Thinking cap please. That No Deal was not deemed to be a winning platform for a Brexit election is proved beyond a shadow of doubt by Johnson's actions. He needed that deal. He needed it so much he was prepared to lie to the EU to get it.
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?
Well quite. They should be rather more concerned with the UK about to trash our reputation int'lly.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Play it straight and lose, or dissimulate and win. A tough choice indeed
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
I think Johnson is hoist with his own petard. In the event of a No Deal, EU exporters can export to the RoI, then up to NI with no checks, then across to rUK with no checks. No problem.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Play it straight and lose, or dissimulate and win. A tough choice indeed
Not if you have any moral sense about you, Mr Blue. And you may wink as much as you like. We are all losers on this, though for different reasons.
Our local amusement of Butt Hole Road was sadly renamed because the residents complained that companies kept refusing to provide services because they thought it was a joke.
Still, there have were worse names in the past. Magpie Lane in Oxford for one...
Look up the history of anywhere called Grape Lane or Grape Street.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Play it straight and lose, or dissimulate and win. A tough choice indeed
Dissimulate is kind indeed. That phrase "My word is my bond." Is there an opposite for it?
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?
The objectors probably just realise that making ridiculous and spurious laws where you say things that are obviously the same are safe in one case and unsafe in another, such as they can all work together in an office but cant safely have a pint together after, brings any regulation into such disrepute that it is likely people are just going to stick two fingers up at you and ignore it.
I supported the initial lockdown when we thought it was going to be 10 to 12 weeks....now it has been 6 months with no end in sight this year and maybe not most of next year. It is time to admit we cannot continue this.
The rules aren't absolutely consistent precisely because they are a balancing act, so that you get the most virus suppression for the least economic harm. Absolute consistency would require either an absolute lockdown or an absolute release, neither of which is a rational option at this stage.
As mentioned earlier in the thread by moonshine - a strong lockdown sceptic - we are still on track to begin vaccinations in November. With a second wave underway here and in many other countries, which has a high probability of overlapping with the flu season, all that 'going herd' now will achieve is to kill or chronically injure a lot of people who could otherwise have been saved.
It doesn't matter whether the rules are consistent or not. You failed to grasp the point which is
1) The laws are ludicrous and thats not about inconsistency 2) The laws are a serious breach of civil liberties 3) The laws have had no parliamentary scrutiny and even though I can accept that initially they had to be brought in quickly that doesn't excuse that they should have had a time limitation clause after which they could only be renewed after full parliamentary scrutiny 4) The laws were meant to be for a short period. Six months and ongoing is not for a short period 5) The laws have been made more authoritarian still with again no parliamentary scruting
Personally I have no intent on obeying these laws purely on principle and the first covid marshall that tries to hand me a fine will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
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.
Malcolm as you know I am a strong supporter of Scottish independence without caveat and would hope (though I doubt) that any English Government would do their best to facilitate a smooth and effective transition to independence after a Yes vote.
But your comment about oil and the Shetlands/Orkneys is complete garbage. A significant proportion of the remaining viable oilfields and certainly the majority of the viable exploration targets lie within waters that would be considered as belonging to Shetland or Orkney - and that is in spite of the massive downgrading of reserves of a number of West of Shetland fields over the last week.
To claim they would be entitled to only a spoonful of the reserves is just rubbish.
I would add that I do not believe either Island group is actually serious about independence from Scotland so the point is probably moot.
More lies, dressed up as facts. If you read beyond the Daily Retard headline it may be he possibly objected to one letter pertaining to him. To try and hide the fact that the cupboard full of the letters that prove the collusion , stitch up and lies are being blocked by government and the unionist civil servants. Unionist liars as ever , with their lapdog media.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
I think Johnson is hoist with his own petard. In the event of a No Deal, EU exporters can export to the RoI, then up to NI with no checks, then across to rUK with no checks. No problem.
And one would almost love to see it. But then of course there would be a gaping hole the other way too - into the SM - if there is no Irish border. Total mess if it happens. Which I really really doubt. Deal coming, I think.
It's difficult to know how Michael Gove can keep a straight face whilst touring the media arguing that the UK government is committed to maintaining the integrity of the Single Market under the Withdrawal Agreement, whilst taking all of the benefits to Northern Ireland whilst taking no measures to allow control of the border of said market. And claiming that this is done "in the spirit" of the WA, and any border measures are an 'extreme interpretation'. Whilst claiming this is because of the risk of not being able to export food to NI if the UK is not granted an EU food safety certificate. Believe me, he will have bigger issues than not being able to export to NI if the UK is not granted a food safety certificate..
Apparently having control of the UK border is of crucial importance to the UK (except where it isn't) but not a concern that the EU is allowed to have from their perspective.
Speaking of Orkney and Shetland, what about the (perfidious) Brit-Scot claim to Rockall?
Scotland(Britain)'s claim rests on St. Kilda being the nearest point of land to Rockall. Ireland have a claim based on Rockall being nearer to the Irish mainland than to the Scottish mainland. However, now there is a bridge to Skye, it could be argued that Skye is now mainland Scotland. Since Rockall is nearer to Skye than it is to Ireland, this reinforces the Scottish claim.
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?
The objectors probably just realise that making ridiculous and spurious laws where you say things that are obviously the same are safe in one case and unsafe in another, such as they can all work together in an office but cant safely have a pint together after, brings any regulation into such disrepute that it is likely people are just going to stick two fingers up at you and ignore it.
I supported the initial lockdown when we thought it was going to be 10 to 12 weeks....now it has been 6 months with no end in sight this year and maybe not most of next year. It is time to admit we cannot continue this.
The rules aren't absolutely consistent precisely because they are a balancing act, so that you get the most virus suppression for the least economic harm. Absolute consistency would require either an absolute lockdown or an absolute release, neither of which is a rational option at this stage.
As mentioned earlier in the thread by moonshine - a strong lockdown sceptic - we are still on track to begin vaccinations in November. With a second wave underway here and in many other countries, which has a high probability of overlapping with the flu season, all that 'going herd' now will achieve is to kill or chronically injure a lot of people who could otherwise have been saved.
It doesn't matter whether the rules are consistent or not. You failed to grasp the point which is
1) The laws are ludicrous and thats not about inconsistency 2) The laws are a serious breach of civil liberties 3) The laws have had no parliamentary scrutiny and even though I can accept that initially they had to be brought in quickly that doesn't excuse that they should have had a time limitation clause after which they could only be renewed after full parliamentary scrutiny 4) The laws were meant to be for a short period. Six months and ongoing is not for a short period 5) The laws have been made more authoritarian still with again no parliamentary scruting
Personally I have no intent on obeying these laws purely on principle and the first covid marshall that tries to hand me a fine will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
I'm not going to tell you how to live - you can make your decisions. But why exactly you expect the laws to be time-limited when the virus itself is not (yet) is a complete mystery to me.
The bilthe assumption that a government which behaves in this way will continue to allow free and fair elections is becoming increasingly naive, IMO.
or just remove the elected posts. District councils for the chop under Cumming's government.
Yes but District and County councils would be replaced by elected unitary councils instead.
Town and Parish councils would remain anyway
Why?
To reduce layers of government is the theory, currently many towns and villages have town or parish councils, district councils and county councils ie 3 tiers, instead the new plans would just have town councils or parish councils and unitary councils ie 2 tiers.
Much as London only has borough councils and the London Assembly or many cities like Manchester and Birmingham only have 1 city council
Well yes. But in that case the law was broken the day Johnson signed the Withdrawal Agreement. In full knowledge it would establish trade barriers in the Irish Sea. Something that May's Agreement didn't. It's almost as if for two years he paid no attention to the issue of Northern ireland within the Brexit negotiations whatsoever.
If he didn't like it, or it broke the law, then he shouldn't have signed it. Which is why even people like Michael Howard, who strongly opposed the Withdrawal Agreement, are now leading the opposition to the proposals.
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Play it straight and lose, or dissimulate and win. A tough choice indeed
Dissimulate is kind indeed. That phrase "My word is my bond." Is there an opposite for it?
Perhaps this from Euripides' Hippolytus:
ἡ γλῶσσ’ ὀμώμοχ’, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος.
'The tongue swore, but the mind remained unsworn'.
The bilthe assumption that a government which behaves in this way will continue to allow free and fair elections is becoming increasingly naive, IMO.
or just remove the elected posts. District councils for the chop under Cumming's government.
Yes but District and County councils would be replaced by elected unitary councils instead.
Town and Parish councils would remain anyway
Why?
To reduce layers of government is the theory, currently many towns and villages have town or parish councils, district councils and county councils ie 3 tiers, instead the new plans would just have town councils and unitary councils ie 2 tiers.
Much as London only has borough councils and the London Assembly or many cities like Manchester and Birmingham only have 1 city council
If 2 is better than 3, then surely 1 is better than 2.
The bilthe assumption that a government which behaves in this way will continue to allow free and fair elections is becoming increasingly naive, IMO.
or just remove the elected posts. District councils for the chop under Cumming's government.
Yes but District and County councils would be replaced by elected unitary councils instead.
Town and Parish councils would remain anyway
Why?
Given the size and potential remotes of these new unitaries the town/ parish level becomes more important and hopefully will receive more devolved powers. They should become the eyes and ears for their electorate with a direct Line into the unitary executive.
The bilthe assumption that a government which behaves in this way will continue to allow free and fair elections is becoming increasingly naive, IMO.
or just remove the elected posts. District councils for the chop under Cumming's government.
Yes but District and County councils would be replaced by elected unitary councils instead.
Town and Parish councils would remain anyway
Why?
To reduce layers of government is the theory, currently many towns and villages have town or parish councils, district councils and county councils ie 3 tiers, instead the new plans would just have town councils and unitary councils ie 2 tiers.
Much as London only has borough councils and the London Assembly or many cities like Manchester and Birmingham only have 1 city council
If 2 is better than 3, then surely 1 is better than 2.
No as you still need one layer above town or parish councils, they would represent the town or village, the unitary council would represent several hundred thousand people minimum
Well yes. But in that case the law was broken the day Johnson signed the Withdrawal Agreement. In full knowledge it would establish trade barriers in the Irish Sea. Something that May's Agreement didn't. It's almost as if for two years he paid no attention to the issue of Northern ireland within the Brexit negotiations whatsoever.
If he didn't like it, or it broke the law, then he shouldn't have signed it. Which is why even people like Michael Howard, who strongly opposed the Withdrawal Agreement, are now leading the opposition to the proposals.
The problem is he signed it in the expectation of a trade deal which would minimise barriers between NI and GB, if the EU refuse to back down on state aid and fishing that means no trade deal and the barriers between NI and GB would be more significant if the WA was kept unamended
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Play it straight and lose, or dissimulate and win. A tough choice indeed
Dissimulate is kind indeed. That phrase "My word is my bond." Is there an opposite for it?
Perhaps this from Euripides' Hippolytus:
ἡ γλῶσσ’ ὀμώμοχ’, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος.
'The tongue swore, but the mind remained unsworn'.
That sounds like the classical version of "You can tell when he's lying cos his lips move."
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?
Please focus rather than 'loling'.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
It's hilarious how the 'genius' oven-ready deal has now become a historical embarrassment in a matter of days.
Yep. The ironies abound. Like, Mrs May said a border in the Irish Sea was "something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept". And it turns out she was right. But the trick she missed - due to possession of that inconvenient character trait called integrity - was to pretend to accept it in order to get the deal needed as the platform for an election win, and then with power duly secured to unaccept it again!
Play it straight and lose, or dissimulate and win. A tough choice indeed
Dissimulate is kind indeed. That phrase "My word is my bond." Is there an opposite for it?
Perhaps this from Euripides' Hippolytus:
ἡ γλῶσσ’ ὀμώμοχ’, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος.
'The tongue swore, but the mind remained unsworn'.
Sure. And if you lose a £100 bet with a fellow poster here, you can pay up and lose £100 or do nothing and break even. You are claiming to be a piece of shit, and nobody is arguing with you. Not sure what the emoticons and Perseus copy-pastes contribute to the argument.
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?
The objectors probably just realise that making ridiculous and spurious laws where you say things that are obviously the same are safe in one case and unsafe in another, such as they can all work together in an office but cant safely have a pint together after, brings any regulation into such disrepute that it is likely people are just going to stick two fingers up at you and ignore it.
I supported the initial lockdown when we thought it was going to be 10 to 12 weeks....now it has been 6 months with no end in sight this year and maybe not most of next year. It is time to admit we cannot continue this.
The rules aren't absolutely consistent precisely because they are a balancing act, so that you get the most virus suppression for the least economic harm. Absolute consistency would require either an absolute lockdown or an absolute release, neither of which is a rational option at this stage.
As mentioned earlier in the thread by moonshine - a strong lockdown sceptic - we are still on track to begin vaccinations in November. With a second wave underway here and in many other countries, which has a high probability of overlapping with the flu season, all that 'going herd' now will achieve is to kill or chronically injure a lot of people who could otherwise have been saved.
It doesn't matter whether the rules are consistent or not. You failed to grasp the point which is
1) The laws are ludicrous and thats not about inconsistency 2) The laws are a serious breach of civil liberties 3) The laws have had no parliamentary scrutiny and even though I can accept that initially they had to be brought in quickly that doesn't excuse that they should have had a time limitation clause after which they could only be renewed after full parliamentary scrutiny 4) The laws were meant to be for a short period. Six months and ongoing is not for a short period 5) The laws have been made more authoritarian still with again no parliamentary scruting
Personally I have no intent on obeying these laws purely on principle and the first covid marshall that tries to hand me a fine will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
I'm not going to tell you how to live - you can make your decisions. But why exactly you expect the laws to be time-limited when the virus itself is not (yet) is a complete mystery to me.
Income tax was announced as a temporary measure. And yet here we are.
Every despot has a really, really good reason why civil liberties should be curtailed The fact is, there are almost no good reasons.
As Benjamin Franklin said those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I can;t think of a more apt quote for this situation.
The bilthe assumption that a government which behaves in this way will continue to allow free and fair elections is becoming increasingly naive, IMO.
or just remove the elected posts. District councils for the chop under Cumming's government.
Yes but District and County councils would be replaced by elected unitary councils instead.
Town and Parish councils would remain anyway
Why?
To reduce layers of government is the theory, currently many towns and villages have town or parish councils, district councils and county councils ie 3 tiers, instead the new plans would just have town councils or parish councils and unitary councils ie 2 tiers.
Much as London only has borough councils and the London Assembly or many cities like Manchester and Birmingham only have 1 city council
They have the right to establish a parish council if majority support for one, I believe there are several in Liverpool.
Our local amusement of Butt Hole Road was sadly renamed because the residents complained that companies kept refusing to provide services because they thought it was a joke.
Still, there have were worse names in the past. Magpie Lane in Oxford for one...
Also Tidmarsh Lane (behind the Castle) is in its bowdlerised version.
Just had a group of about a dozen chaps walk past on the footpath near our house, carrying rucksacks and wearing boots and socks but not wearing anything else.
It's OK though. As they passed we heard one of them say "I've got my secateurs with me in case we need them".
Just had a group of about a dozen chaps walk past on the footpath near our house, carrying rucksacks and wearing boots and socks but not wearing anything else.
It's OK though. As they passed we heard one of them say "I've got my secateurs with me in case we need them".
Just had a group of about a dozen chaps walk past on the footpath near our house, carrying rucksacks and wearing boots and socks but not wearing anything else.
It's OK though. As they passed we heard one of them say "I've got my secateurs with me in case we need them".
But the question on everyone's lips is were they wearing masks?
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave#True_enclaves
I supported the initial lockdown when we thought it was going to be 10 to 12 weeks....now it has been 6 months with no end in sight this year and maybe not most of next year. It is time to admit we cannot continue this.
Frankly being pedantic isn't worth it was my conclusion.
Map for our northern neighbor British Columbia is very interesting. Bad air quality in metro Vancounver and rest of Lower Mainland, also for Victoria & southern Vancouver Island.
BUT good air just to the north and east, including BC Okanagan. Which happens to be just north of the WA State Okanogan (note spelling difference) which has been devastated by fires that have raged for a week and consumed hundreds of thousands of acres of forest and whatever else is in their path.
Note that a few years ago, when (for the first time in my 30-year experience out here) Seattle was chocking on similar smoke, it was coming mainly from the BC Interior, which so far has been largely spared this fire season.
Anyway, point being, if you find yourself embroiled in a big argument with somebody (which could of course be Philip himself) and it starts to get very convoluted and frustrating, you can call a halt and say -"I refer to the Panel for a verdict."
And that's it. They review the exchange and pronounce. No appeal.
It's been working great. We've used it twice already and it has revealed that -
Labour's 2015 manifesto under Ed Miliband WAS a moderate offering. (11/1 vote).
Actually I forget the second referral, but there was one.
https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1304495936769601536?s=20
For which I personally blame Sir Cloudesley Shovell.
As mentioned earlier in the thread by moonshine - a strong lockdown sceptic - we are still on track to begin vaccinations in November. With a second wave underway here and in many other countries, which has a high probability of overlapping with the flu season, all that 'going herd' now will achieve is to kill or chronically injure a lot of people who could otherwise have been saved.
Will try later.
There's a shortage of women in the Faroe Islands. So men are increasingly seeking wives from Thailand and the Philippines.
Your question. What would the GE result have been if the Con position was to leave the EU with No Deal?
Hung Parliament. Lab + LD + SNP > Con + DUP.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1304748417663500288?s=20
Looking forward to the new footy season starting today and I have some tasty season long bets in place. At one time I'd have posted them on here but PB.com long ceased to be a meaningful betting site, politically or otherwise and most of the smart cookies in that regard have long departed the site, more's the pity.
No meet-ups, no prize money competitions any more, fings ain't what they used to be.
Still, there have were worse names in the past. Magpie Lane in Oxford for one...
People trusted Boris to sort it out one way or another.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54131297
"Get Brexit Done" was the slogan. And it was done. We left on 31st January. So there is no need to debate that bit of the Tories mandate as it has already been enacted in full - we left the EU.
What is relevant now is what we do now that we have left the EU. The Tories ran on a platform that to "Get Brexit Done" they would enact their Withdrawal Agreement. They did. DAlexander cannot say there is no argument about mandates - the PM's withdrawal agreement was literally the entire election campaign.
Nor can they argue that events (dear boy) have forced the change. Absolutely nothing new has happened. So we have the government of the day wanting to directly contradict its own policy which was the entire reason why we even had an election. Yes it has the power in the Commons to do whatever it likes. But it requires the consent of the Lords to make law. And they are not going to give their consent. They will simply point out that they are defending the legislative programme proposed by the government and elected by the people. As the government apparently needs this u-turn it has a big problem - the Lords will not yield and cannot be forced under existing laws or conventions.
This one will be the subject of politics classes for generations. Ordinarily its the unelected Lords trying to block the Commons carrying out the will of the people. This time its the unelected Lords trying to protect the will of the people over the MPs who have changed their minds. Should be fun...
In the event of a No Deal, EU exporters can export to the RoI, then up to NI with no checks, then across to rUK with no checks. No problem.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1304730782548795392?s=20
1) The laws are ludicrous and thats not about inconsistency
2) The laws are a serious breach of civil liberties
3) The laws have had no parliamentary scrutiny and even though I can accept that initially they had to be brought in quickly that doesn't excuse that they should have had a time limitation clause after which they could only be renewed after full parliamentary scrutiny
4) The laws were meant to be for a short period. Six months and ongoing is not for a short period
5) The laws have been made more authoritarian still with again no parliamentary scruting
Personally I have no intent on obeying these laws purely on principle and the first covid marshall that tries to hand me a fine will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
But your comment about oil and the Shetlands/Orkneys is complete garbage. A significant proportion of the remaining viable oilfields and certainly the majority of the viable exploration targets lie within waters that would be considered as belonging to Shetland or Orkney - and that is in spite of the massive downgrading of reserves of a number of West of Shetland fields over the last week.
To claim they would be entitled to only a spoonful of the reserves is just rubbish.
I would add that I do not believe either Island group is actually serious about independence from Scotland so the point is probably moot.
Unionist liars as ever , with their lapdog media.
https://twitter.com/Digbylj/status/1304377310800470016?s=20
Town and Parish councils would remain anyway
Apparently having control of the UK border is of crucial importance to the UK (except where it isn't) but not a concern that the EU is allowed to have from their perspective.
Ireland have a claim based on Rockall being nearer to the Irish mainland than to the Scottish mainland.
However, now there is a bridge to Skye, it could be argued that Skye is now mainland Scotland.
Since Rockall is nearer to Skye than it is to Ireland, this reinforces the Scottish claim.
Much as London only has borough councils and the London Assembly or many cities like Manchester and Birmingham only have 1 city council
If he didn't like it, or it broke the law, then he shouldn't have signed it. Which is why even people like Michael Howard, who strongly opposed the Withdrawal Agreement, are now leading the opposition to the proposals.
I hadn't realized that.
ἡ γλῶσσ’ ὀμώμοχ’, ἡ δὲ φρὴν ἀνώμοτος.
'The tongue swore, but the mind remained unsworn'.
Hasn't hit any of them, mind.
Every despot has a really, really good reason why civil liberties should be curtailed The fact is, there are almost no good reasons.
As Benjamin Franklin said those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I can;t think of a more apt quote for this situation.
It's OK though. As they passed we heard one of them say "I've got my secateurs with me in case we need them".