Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement. It can only be changed if both parties agree to the change. Just like in the betting example or a debt.
I'm interested in what is going on in your head. Are you just being stubborn now, or can you really not see what is wrong with unilaterally defaulting on an agreement, whether a bet or a debt or an international agreement? Changing the law has nothing to do with the issue.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
Your second paragraph is correct. However international law cannot be changed unilaterally. That’s literally what we are discussing.
Just like a mortgage or a debt cannot be modified unilaterally.
You may not “believe” in international law but that’s another issue.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
It won't happen in the next year or so as Boris will block it
He can't.
Nippy can call a referendum that is illegal only in specific and limited ways, and BoZo can sit and spin...
Boris can, as Madrid showed when the Catalan government held an illegal independence referendum, illegal referendums can be ignored. Just as in the Catalan referendum Unionists would be told to boycott it as well
You really are both delusional and confident beyond your understanding of how things work.
How things work is since the 1707 Act of Union Westminster has been the supreme lawmaker in the UK, Holyrood was only created by Westminster in 1998 and legally Westminster could scrap Holyood or suspend it next year as Madrid suspended the Catalan parliament after the illegal indyref there.
That may not be advisable but constitutionally it is possible and Westminster consent is needed for a legal indyref as it was needed in 2014
But the Scottish government - backed by a democratic mandate - would only be breaking the law in a specific and very limited way. How precisely do you envisage that this government - who backed by democratic mandate is breaking the law in a specific and very limited way - will be able to stop them?
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it correct. As this government themselves are demonstrating the law is now an impediment to political will. They cannot apply one rule for themselves and another for everyone else, politics simply doesn't work like that.
You An intelligent man. You either (a) know it doesn't work like that but are willing to say things you know are not true out of party loyalty (a lie) or (b) you have chosen not to inform yourself in the manner that IDS didn't inform himself about the contents of the bill he was voting for saying "we don't need to read this" (ignorance).
Which is it?
The issue the Scots have is that while the UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not.
Forcing the point on this issue though would be suicide for unionists.
Right. Legally the UK government can block a referendum mandated by a Scottish Parliamentary majority. Politically they cannot. That they have demonstrated an utter disregard for the rule of law just cements into place their inability to stop Sindy if thats what people want.
Breaking the law in a specific and very limited way. Its literally being used as a tactic to try and move an EU red line. Thats all, not even to secure anything of substance. Don't the understand how it wholly undermines HMG's ability to demand that others uphold the law?
Yes, people have bleated on about Iraq as an "illegal" war. But the war was legal, mandated as such by the AG interpreting UN Resolutions. It was legal because the law officer said it was legal. In this case it is illegal and accepted as such the law officer who says "who cares". Madness. I don't care about the tactical pros and cons of the issue at hand, its the utter demolition of credibility of the rule of law that is the problem.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you renege on an agreement before it's implemented, it shows bad faith.
My girlfriend finally has a test! We only have to drive from Ashington to Gretna. Sake.
Look on the bright side. It used to be that only top government advisers were allowed to drive to the other end of the country when they had COVID-19 symptoms.
It won't happen in the next year or so as Boris will block it
He can't.
Nippy can call a referendum that is illegal only in specific and limited ways, and BoZo can sit and spin...
Boris can, as Madrid showed when the Catalan government held an illegal independence referendum, illegal referendums can be ignored. Just as in the Catalan referendum Unionists would be told to boycott it as well
You really are both delusional and confident beyond your understanding of how things work.
How things work is since the 1707 Act of Union Westminster has been the supreme lawmaker in the UK, Holyrood was only created by Westminster in 1998 and legally Westminster could scrap Holyood or suspend it next year as Madrid suspended the Catalan parliament after the illegal indyref there.
That may not be advisable but constitutionally it is possible and Westminster consent is needed for a legal indyref as it was needed in 2014
But the Scottish government - backed by a democratic mandate - would only be breaking the law in a specific and very limited way. How precisely do you envisage that this government - who backed by democratic mandate is breaking the law in a specific and very limited way - will be able to stop them?
Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it correct. As this government themselves are demonstrating the law is now an impediment to political will. They cannot apply one rule for themselves and another for everyone else, politics simply doesn't work like that.
You An intelligent man. You either (a) know it doesn't work like that but are willing to say things you know are not true out of party loyalty (a lie) or (b) you have chosen not to inform yourself in the manner that IDS didn't inform himself about the contents of the bill he was voting for saying "we don't need to read this" (ignorance).
Which is it?
The issue the Scots have is that while the UK Parliament is sovereign, the Scottish Parliament is not.
Forcing the point on this issue though would be suicide for unionists.
Right. Legally the UK government can block a referendum mandated by a Scottish Parliamentary majority. Politically they cannot. That they have demonstrated an utter disregard for the rule of law just cements into place their inability to stop Sindy if thats what people want.
Breaking the law in a specific and very limited way. Its literally being used as a tactic to try and move an EU red line. Thats all, not even to secure anything of substance. Don't the understand how it wholly undermines HMG's ability to demand that others uphold the law?
Yes, people have bleated on about Iraq as an "illegal" war. But the war was legal, mandated as such by the AG interpreting UN Resolutions. It was legal because the law officer said it was legal. In this case it is illegal and accepted as such the law officer who says "who cares". Madness. I don't care about the tactical pros and cons of the issue at hand, its the utter demolition of credibility of the rule of law that is the problem.
The issue is that the courts could stop an illegal Scottish referendum. No court can stop what the Government is doing. Because the UK is sovereign and Scotland is not.
Any unionist who says that is shooting themselves in the head. It is insane.
With Ed Davey as Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Daisy Cooper as Deputy Leader, the Lib Dems now have two of their top campaigners in key positions.
But surely they are not simply setting out to pick up "Soft Conservative" voters? They are aiming to gather in everybody who shares Liberal values, and who is horrified by the antics and nonsense and recklessness of the Johnson regime.
In many constituencies, this will mean people who have traditionally identified with the Labour Party; but they too now need to think through their historic allegiance and focus instead on the outcomes they want to see.
If these Lab voter live where LibDems are clearly second to Johnson's so-called Conservative party then they need to vote LibDem to have any hope of Starmer getting into No. 10.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
The law can be changed to anul a debt and in your world that is perfectly acceptable.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
There's no discouragement. That makes him once see sense. His zeal will never be quenched. Till someone lamps him.
Johnson not the only one to think he’s above the law
United States: US President Donald Trump defied COVID-19 regulations this Sunday by holding a massive rally in Nevada, despite the fact that events that gather more than fifty people are prohibited in this state. The vast majority of attendees did not wear a mask.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
I mean they clearly don't care about that treaty. They are disputing UK sovereignty despite the treaty saying it was ceded in perpetuity.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Nobody is talking about enforcement locally. Of course domestic law trumps international law domestically. That’s how our system works.
However none of that is relevant.
The relevant points are:
1) The domestic courts have rules that ministers have an obligation to respect international law (that cannot be changed by Parliament); and
2) Whether we SHOULD break our treaty commitments. Not whether we CAN, but whether we SHOULD.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
I mean they clearly don't care about that treaty. They are disputing UK sovereignty despite the treaty saying it was ceded in perpetuity.
Phil says agreements don't last forever. The Treaty of Utrecht was agreed in 1715. The WDA was agreed 10 months ago and ratified in the UK parliament 8 months ago.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
I mean they clearly don't care about that treaty. They are disputing UK sovereignty despite the treaty saying it was ceded in perpetuity.
Phil says agreements don't last forever. The Treaty of Utrecht was agreed in 1715. The WDA was agreed 10 months ago and ratified in the UK parliament 8 months ago.
Maybe so, but the point being made is that the treaty is the only thing stopping them from taking it.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
I mean they clearly don't care about that treaty. They are disputing UK sovereignty despite the treaty saying it was ceded in perpetuity.
Phil says agreements don't last forever. The Treaty of Utrecht was agreed in 1715. The WDA was agreed 10 months ago and ratified in the UK parliament 8 months ago.
Maybe so, but the point being made is that the treaty is the only thing stopping them from taking it.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
I mean they clearly don't care about that treaty. They are disputing UK sovereignty despite the treaty saying it was ceded in perpetuity.
Phil says agreements don't last forever. The Treaty of Utrecht was agreed in 1715. The WDA was agreed 10 months ago and ratified in the UK parliament 8 months ago.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
The latest poll on Scottish Independence based on age range.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16% 25-34 YES = 75% NO=25% 35-44 YES = 57% NO =43% 45-54 YES = 52% NO =48% 55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55% 65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
Unfortunately the young 'uns always turn to Toryism and the Union eventually. I've been told this on here by lifelong Tory Unionists so it must be true.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
A debt is just an agreement to pay some money back.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
Since I live in the real world, yes that is the way the world works.
I wouldn't say that is "perfectly OK" since we don't live in a "perfectly OK" world. If we did, I'd be looking to eliminate COVID19, cancer and plenty else before worrying about changing the law.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
Yep, we get that. You do not believe in international law.
I do. It is subordinate to national law. If national law and international law do not conflict then both should be enforced, if national law and international law are in conflict then obviously one of them needs to take priority.
Yep, so as I say, in your world it would be perfectly OK for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
Since I live in the real world, yes that is the way the world works.
I wouldn't say that is "perfectly OK" since we don't live in a "perfectly OK" world. If we did, I'd be looking to eliminate COVID19, cancer and plenty else before worrying about changing the law.
No you wouldn’t, you’d be in peak whine mode and be going on about retaliatory military action. You’d certainly not be ok with it.
The Withdrawal Agreement contains mutually agreed provisions for enforcement/remedy should one or other side break their obligations under the agreement. Does he believe that the UK should accept any judgements in relation to this?
The UK is proposing to change domestic law to allow ministers to take action contrary to/are illegal under the treaty. But not repudiate the treaty itself. Does Philip believe that this unilateral action changes the status or provisions of the agreement in INTERNATIONAL law?
Should a UK minister, acting under domestic law, follow through on the breaking of the treaty does he accept that, as long as the Treaty is still in place then the EU have the right to seek remedy, under International law, through the mutally agreed enforcement actions?
Should that remedy be granted, should the UK accept this?
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
I think Labour will support an EEC type arrangement that removes the NI-GB issue. I think the LibDems will do the same.
The state aid issue is remarkable. A Tory government wants the freedom to subsidise chosen industries. This was why Corbyn was anti-EU. He wanted to do the same. It is driven by Cummings and his grand visions. The moonshot probably is too.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
A well crafted point that gets straight to the heart of Labour's problem - it doesn't have a position. Yes they have lost a lot of leave voting seats, but they intend to win them back. So they have to support Brexit. Without going too far and losing the support of the leave seats.
What they and the LibDems have got right is placing Brexit in the past tense. We left. It is done. The referendum mandate has been delivered. Argument over, move on. The battle is then of course what the UK does outside the UK, and the problem all parties have is that nobody can agree on a route forward that works practically and politically.
For me the GFA always was the unsquareable circle. We cannot have an open border between ROI and NI and between NI and GB if the UK has different customs arrangements and standards than ROI. Ultimately the government has to choose between tearing up the GFA - and with it any chance of both peace and trade deals - or tearing up the "EU = EEA = CU" nonsense.
We left. We want to plow our own path. EEA membership as an associate member of EFTA plus a UK specific Customs Union does the job. As for migration, simply apply the existing rule allowing EU members to both set rules for migration and deport EU citizens who flout them. We'd have to declare that as something Shagger had won obviously which doesn't really matter.
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
One of your better and more thoughtful recent contributions, IMO.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
A debt is just an agreement to pay some money back.
Quite. I'm going to give up banging my head against the wall with Philip. I still can't decide whether he is deliberately trolling or is ...... I'm off for lunch.
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
I think Labour will support an EEC type arrangement that removes the NI-GB issue. I think the LibDems will do the same.
The state aid issue is remarkable. A Tory government wants the freedom to subsidise chosen industries. This was why Corbyn was anti-EU. He wanted to do the same. It is driven by Cummings and his grand visions. The moonshot probably is too.
IIRC Stephen Kinnock proposed it as "EEC 2.0". We leave all the political stuff of the EU but retain our participation in free trade. Its simple, its obvious, it fixes all the problems, we'll never go for it.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
It is fair to look at the alternatives when choosing where to place your vote.
But then again I don't read Big G's posts because they are self-serving and contribute nothing more than an insight into a particularly vacuous type of political mind.
He seems a very decent type but out of his depth politics-wise.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
And it's absolute nonsense and Government propaganda. They have made no such threat. And if it was the genuine justification for their changes (which it isn't because the Withdrawal agreement anyway contains clauses which would prevent this happening) why does the Internal Market bill not limit the issue to food exports? Why does it contain clauses in relation to state aid?
And even more so, if such a "threat" has only just come to light, why have the Government been planning these changes and seeking legal advice on them for months...
Of course, as Rochdale Pioneers made clear yesterday, the issue of the certification of UK food exports has been known about for four years. It has been previously highlighted (including in Government No deal preparation guidance) as a 'risk' of what could happen post Brexit without a new comprehensive trade agreement.
None of it is new. All of it has been known about and fully understood. And its theoretical implication for exports into Northern Ireland as a de facto member of the single market subject to EU regulations.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
A debt is just an agreement to pay some money back.
Quite. I'm going to give up banging my head against the wall with Philip. I still can't decide whether he is deliberately trolling or is ...... I'm off for lunch.
He's got stamina that's for sure. If he were a footballer his scouting report would read "Guaranteed to put a shift in."
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
Nobody has a no deal plan and that includes the EU and labour
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law. PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable. The law is the law and that can be changed.
The law can be changed to anul a debt and in your world that is perfectly acceptable.
I do not remember what it was that Mr Thompson studied, though I expect he told us at one stage. However, it is clear to me that it could not have included Ethics, nor indeed Law, since at an academic level that is largely a matter of ethics and argument, from what I have seen.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
Nobody has a no deal plan and that includes the EU and labour
I don’t disagree at all. But I just expected the Government, who openly tell us “no deal” will be fine, would have everything ready by now.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
A debt is just an agreement to pay some money back.
Quite. I'm going to give up banging my head against the wall with Philip. I still can't decide whether he is deliberately trolling or is ...... I'm off for lunch.
He's got stamina that's for sure. If he were a footballer his scouting report would read "Guaranteed to put a shift in."
But a tendency to pass sideways to often, and far too many own goals.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
And it's absolute nonsense and Government propaganda. They have made no such threat.
@Philip_Thompson will swallow anything the Government gives to him.
The testing regime seems completely broken as well, Times saying that tests are being sent to Italy and Germany to be processed but loads are not being sent in proper conditions so the results aren't reliable.
They seem to have built a house of cards testing system which is about to completely collapse. We've had >£15bn spent and 4 months to prepare for this second wave. It's a complete disaster.
Are you suggesting that maybe the person in charge - Dido Harding - is not as good as she was cracked up to be? Say it ain’t so!
The testing regime seems completely broken as well, Times saying that tests are being sent to Italy and Germany to be processed but loads are not being sent in proper conditions so the results aren't reliable.
They seem to have built a house of cards testing system which is about to completely collapse. We've had >£15bn spent and 4 months to prepare for this second wave. It's a complete disaster.
Are you suggesting that maybe the person in charge - Dido Harding - is not as good as she was cracked up to be? Say it ain’t so!
The system appears to be one of the best in the world based on the numbers, so I'd be curious who'd be better?
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
It is fair to look at the alternatives when choosing where to place your vote.
But then again I don't read Big G's posts because they are self-serving and contribute nothing more than an insight into a particularly vacuous type of political mind.
He seems a very decent type but out of his depth politics-wise.
Thank you so much for your response to an honest post
Two Los Angeles police officers are in a critical condition after being shot in what police are calling an ambush.
Protesters shouted anti-police slogans and blocked the entrance to the emergency room where the two officers are being treated, police and witnesses said.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
Nobody has a no deal plan and that includes the EU and labour
I don’t disagree at all. But I just expected the Government, who openly tell us “no deal” will be fine, would have everything ready by now.
HMG readiness or otherwise may well be tested soon
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
And it's absolute nonsense and Government propaganda. They have made no such threat.
Whats more the NI Haulage industry has been screaming about the UK imposed border and its impacts on their literal viability. UK supermarkets are similarly saying they won't ship foodstuffs if the paperwork is going to be onerous chaos.
It isn't the EU threatening food blockade, it is the UK. Because in 110 days time all food imports and exports will rely on the functioning of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a massive software suite that doesn't yet exist or even is being built. That in turn will rely on the human infrastructure of customs officials not hired, of standards officials not hired, and of everyone in the industry from manufacturer to importer to haulier to wholesaler having a clear set of guidelines to work to. In 110 days.
The EU isn't saying this. The UK is. In 110 days the truck driver is personally liable for the data on his vehicle's Kent Access Permit being correct of he gets a £300 fine. That the KAP, the system that generates the KAP, the system that compiles the data to go onto a KAP, the truck parks, the officials etc etc etc do not exist yet is not Michael Barnier's fault.
Two Los Angeles police officers are in a critical condition after being shot in what police are calling an ambush.
Protesters shouted anti-police slogans and blocked the entrance to the emergency room where the two officers are being treated, police and witnesses said.
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
It was me who asked the original question and I am grateful to you for such a detailed response. However, while it explains why you won't back Labour, it doesn't explain why you continue to back the Tories. It's the latter bit that genuinely puzzles me - especially today after the Lord Chancellor has stated he believes there are acceptable ways to break the rule of law.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
It is fair to look at the alternatives when choosing where to place your vote.
But then again I don't read Big G's posts because they are self-serving and contribute nothing more than an insight into a particularly vacuous type of political mind.
He seems a very decent type but out of his depth politics-wise.
Thank you so much for your response to an honest post
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
And it's absolute nonsense and Government propaganda. They have made no such threat.
Whats more the NI Haulage industry has been screaming about the UK imposed border and its impacts on their literal viability. UK supermarkets are similarly saying they won't ship foodstuffs if the paperwork is going to be onerous chaos.
It isn't the EU threatening food blockade, it is the UK. Because in 110 days time all food imports and exports will rely on the functioning of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a massive software suite that doesn't yet exist or even is being built. That in turn will rely on the human infrastructure of customs officials not hired, of standards officials not hired, and of everyone in the industry from manufacturer to importer to haulier to wholesaler having a clear set of guidelines to work to. In 110 days.
The EU isn't saying this. The UK is. In 110 days the truck driver is personally liable for the data on his vehicle's Kent Access Permit being correct of he gets a £300 fine. That the KAP, the system that generates the KAP, the system that compiles the data to go onto a KAP, the truck parks, the officials etc etc etc do not exist yet is not Michael Barnier's fault.
Boris Johnson today said his government was going to tear up the WA he signed because his government is unable to implement it due to being a bit shit.
‘Er, cripes, yes, well, you know, the way things, umm, yes, they don’t, er, what’s the word I’m looking, looking for, yes, they haven’t gone quite as, you know, thought they er, might. We are all, really, when it comes, comes down to it, just very, or even, truthfully, completely, useless. I couldn’t, well, couldn’t organise a fuck up in a, a, a, cat house.’
The admission comes as his world beating track and trace system again sent a prominent lawyer from Newcastle all the way from Ashington to Gretna in order to get a his girlfriend a Covid test, although his friends on PB reminded him that this gives them the perfect excuse for a wedding without the fuzz asking why the actual fuck they are breaking quarantine.
M. Barnier, consulted by Zoom, commented, ‘Nothing surprises me, other than the fact he has actually grasped how useless he is.’
A prominent sacked civil servant in the cabinet office muttered ‘fucking truth twisters’ into his whisky as his successor hurriedly tried to slap a D-notice on all media outlets.
Sir Keir Starmer made no comment, other than to reiterate he wants to see Brexit done and the pandemic defeated.
It is a strategy based on her experience in St Albans, where she provided the only point of light for the party on a dismal election night by overturning an 11 per cent Tory lead to romp home by more than 6,000 votes in a constituency last held by Liberals in 1904.
Because St Albans is totally typical of all of the rest of the UK.
Two Los Angeles police officers are in a critical condition after being shot in what police are calling an ambush.
Protesters shouted anti-police slogans and blocked the entrance to the emergency room where the two officers are being treated, police and witnesses said.
It is going to take an extremely skilled president to try and calm tensions, be factually accurate (i.e. dispel this false narrative that 1000s of unarmed black men are being murdered by the police every year, while tackling any racism within the force) and ensure justice is done from all these events....rather than the Donald or Ted Wheeler approaches.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
The EU cannot blockade Northern Ireland. Johnson is lying. Of course.
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
It was me who asked the original question and I am grateful to you for such a detailed response. However, while it explains why you won't back Labour, it doesn't explain why you continue to back the Tories. It's the latter bit that genuinely puzzles me - especially today after the Lord Chancellor has stated he believes there are acceptable ways to break the rule of law.
I thought I had to be honest.
The problem I have is that everyone seems to agree that obstacles to the internal GB-NI market and the EU preventing the UK deciding on its own state aid rules but nobody has announced an alternative that is feasible other than condemn the breaking of the WDA, probably as they know it would go down like a lead balloon in the red wall seats
And it is not just Brexit I actually think HMG have done a reasonable job on covid and of course I absolutely would back Rishi to deal with this economic disaster.
The economics maybe trump everything for me and I not only trust Rishi I want him as PM asap
What is really strange about the excuse making for the Tory lead in last night's Opinium - that it was only because the Tories threw red meat to their supporters - is that it hasn't dawned on the people spinning that happens at Election time too.
"I see Boris got an 80 seat majority" "Yeah but that was only cos he promised what he knew his supporters wanted"
@ydoethur I love it. I am however slightly concerned that after reading that out to my girlfriend, she’s suddenly become very interested in the marriage idea.
Surely you believe that (there are acceptable ways to break the law) to be correct?
The thing that is extremely odd and unusual, is that this is a law that was recently put in place by the same government and was the headline of their manifesto.
Getting your head around that is much harder.
There are no acceptable ways to break the rule of law, in my view. Once a government rejects the rule of law, it sets the country on a very dangerous road.
Breaking the speed limit on empty roads to take someone dying to hospital?
That is breaking the law, not rejecting the rule of law.
If the government changes the law then the rule of law has been preserved.
We’ve already has this discussion Phillip. The rule of law includes compliance with international law and Parliament cannot unilaterally change international law.
Has a court ever ruled on whether Parliament can within rule of law operate this way?
Fully functioning democracies have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law. The UK's judiciary does not have the ability to do that unless the government allows it. The government will not allow it.
We have all been sold a tremendous dummy by being persuaded to focus on this nebulous concept of "the rule of law" when the question is the brutally simple one, should governments act honourably and stand by their word? If Mozambique said it would do something in a treaty with the UK, and then that it had changed its mind, I don't see anyone being impressed by learned Mozambiquean counsel boring on about the validity of the move in Mozambique law.
PS The use of here's why" in a headline is an infallible c--t indicator.
People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
You agree a bet you think you are going to win. You lose. The facts have changed. So you renege on it. That's realpolitik. That is a power play that you think you can get away with.
Do you think that is wise? Do you think that it is OK?
No, absolutely not. That's completely different.
You said, in defence of Johnson "People are entitled to change their minds. It is a u-turn, u-turns happen.
When facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I showed you with a practical example, close to home, the implication of that line of argument.
You said "No, absolutely not." You felt, in that example, the disgust most of us feel with Johnson's behaviour. Does that help you see it from our point of view? At heart, it is a moral question, not a legal one.
The two are not comparable.
Changing the law is not comparable to defaulting on a debt. The comparable thing would be eg a sovereign debt default which is not something the UK has ever done or that I would support.
It is not about changing the law. It is about defaulting on an agreement. Changing the law is a smokescreen that you are hiding behind. It is about defaulting on an agreement.
That is immoral in betting or in international relations. If morality doesn't concern you, it is also extremely unwise. You may get a short term benefit but at the cost of much greater long term pain.
In Phil's world it would be morally acceptable for the Spanish to tear up the Treaty of Utrecht and to march into Gibraltar.
In Phil's world if the Spanish thought they could get away with tearing up the Treaty of Utrecht and marching into Gibraltar they would.
In Phil's world what defends Gibraltar from that is the threat of the military not the threat of lawyers.
So in Phil's world, what defends him when welshing on a bet is his heavies? Not a world I share.
Self-respect. A debt is a debt and that is inviolable.
The law is the law and that can be changed.
An agreement is an agreement.
Debts should be paid.
Agreements don't last forever.
If you're going to break an agreement made in good faith between Sovereign Governments you would at least expect one of the following to be in place, if not several, to at least provide some sort of justification/cover
1) Different Government to the original signatory 2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it! 3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement 4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force 5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment 6) incompatability with pre-existing laws 7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
The British government's argument is #3 on your list.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
And it's absolute nonsense and Government propaganda. They have made no such threat.
Whats more the NI Haulage industry has been screaming about the UK imposed border and its impacts on their literal viability. UK supermarkets are similarly saying they won't ship foodstuffs if the paperwork is going to be onerous chaos.
It isn't the EU threatening food blockade, it is the UK. Because in 110 days time all food imports and exports will rely on the functioning of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a massive software suite that doesn't yet exist or even is being built. That in turn will rely on the human infrastructure of customs officials not hired, of standards officials not hired, and of everyone in the industry from manufacturer to importer to haulier to wholesaler having a clear set of guidelines to work to. In 110 days.
The EU isn't saying this. The UK is. In 110 days the truck driver is personally liable for the data on his vehicle's Kent Access Permit being correct of he gets a £300 fine. That the KAP, the system that generates the KAP, the system that compiles the data to go onto a KAP, the truck parks, the officials etc etc etc do not exist yet is not Michael Barnier's fault.
but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite)
In what sense is Johnson not part of the metropolitan elite?
He doesn’t deserve to be in the intellectual elite?
Palpably true but we should cut him some slack because longcovid might be responsible for this. The virus is known to have some odd symptoms and it's possible that "turns people into blustering buffoons with the morals of an alley cat and the attention span of a mosquito" is one of them.
Boris Johnson today said his government was going to tear up the WA he signed because his government is unable to implement it due to being a bit shit.
‘Er, cripes, yes, well, you know, the way things, umm, yes, they don’t, er, what’s the word I’m looking, looking for, yes, they haven’t gone quite as, you know, thought they er, might. We are all, really, when it comes, comes down to it, just very, or even, truthfully, completely, useless. I couldn’t, well, couldn’t organise a fuck up in a, a, a, cat house.’
The admission comes as his world beating track and trace system again sent a prominent lawyer from Newcastle all the way from Ashington to Gretna in order to get a his girlfriend a Covid test, although his friends on PB reminded him that this gives them the perfect excuse for a wedding without the fuzz asking why the actual fuck they are breaking quarantine.
M. Barnier, consulted by Zoom, commented, ‘Nothing surprises me, other than the fact he has actually grasped how useless he is.’
A prominent sacked civil servant in the cabinet office muttered ‘fucking truth twisters’ into his whisky as his successor hurriedly tried to slap a D-notice on all media outlets.
Sir Keir Starmer made no comment, other than to reiterate he wants to see Brexit done and the pandemic defeated.
I am really amused with your post and you have it in one in the last paragraph
but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite)
In what sense is Johnson not part of the metropolitan elite?
Cos they all can't stand him and their endless bleating and whining about how awful he is endears him to many of his supporters. On balance I think the more moderate approach of Starmer is more effective so far.
What is really strange about the excuse making for the Tory lead in last night's Opinium - that it was only because the Tories threw red meat to their supporters - is that it hasn't dawned on the people spinning that happens at Election time too.
"I see Boris got an 80 seat majority" "Yeah but that was only cos he promised what he knew his supporters wanted"
Promises have to be delivered on - especially when you have an 80 seat majority.
It is a strategy based on her experience in St Albans, where she provided the only point of light for the party on a dismal election night by overturning an 11 per cent Tory lead to romp home by more than 6,000 votes in a constituency last held by Liberals in 1904.
Because St Albans is totally typical of all of the rest of the UK.
Nowhere is totally typical of the rest of the UK. Not even Stevenage.
What is really strange about the excuse making for the Tory lead in last night's Opinium - that it was only because the Tories threw red meat to their supporters - is that it hasn't dawned on the people spinning that happens at Election time too.
"I see Boris got an 80 seat majority" "Yeah but that was only cos he promised what he knew his supporters wanted"
Well the government won a huge majority in support of a Brexit deal they are now trashing as rubbish, so clearly the government’s contempt for the public is vast.
Likewise they promised a deal with the EU they can’t deliver. Again, clearly showing contempt for the public.
@Big_G_NorthWales the Government hasn’t said what they’ll do if the current impasse continues?
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
My piece was why I remain in support of HMG
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
But I asked you a question about the government not about Labour.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
It is fair to look at the alternatives when choosing where to place your vote.
But then again I don't read Big G's posts because they are self-serving and contribute nothing more than an insight into a particularly vacuous type of political mind.
He seems a very decent type but out of his depth politics-wise.
Right - he backed the party leader who won an 80 seat majority and you......?
@ydoethur I love it. I am however slightly concerned that after reading that out to my girlfriend, she’s suddenly become very interested in the marriage idea.
Ooops. I apologise for dropping you in it (or not, depending on inclination)...
Although truthfully there is a certain irony that your gf wants you to drive her to Gretna for a test...
What is really strange about the excuse making for the Tory lead in last night's Opinium - that it was only because the Tories threw red meat to their supporters - is that it hasn't dawned on the people spinning that happens at Election time too.
"I see Boris got an 80 seat majority" "Yeah but that was only cos he promised what he knew his supporters wanted"
Promises have to be delivered on - especially when you have an 80 seat majority.
Cameron promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands - no ifs, no buts. It went over 300,000 and he went from Coalition to majority while Ed led on Net Satisfaction and Labour led the VI for years
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
It was me who asked the original question and I am grateful to you for such a detailed response. However, while it explains why you won't back Labour, it doesn't explain why you continue to back the Tories. It's the latter bit that genuinely puzzles me - especially today after the Lord Chancellor has stated he believes there are acceptable ways to break the rule of law.
I thought I had to be honest.
The problem I have is that everyone seems to agree that obstacles to the internal GB-NI market and the EU preventing the UK deciding on its own state aid rules but nobody has announced an alternative that is feasible other than condemn the breaking of the WDA, probably as they know it would go down like a lead balloon in the red wall seats
And it is not just Brexit I actually think HMG have done a reasonable job on covid and of course I absolutely would back Rishi to deal with this economic disaster.
The economics maybe trump everything for me and I not only trust Rishi I want him as PM asap
The EU cannot prevent the UK from making its own state aid rules. Right now, the UK is not sayimg what its state aid rules will be. If we want a deal with the EU they will need ot be compatible with EU standards.
@ydoethur I love it. I am however slightly concerned that after reading that out to my girlfriend, she’s suddenly become very interested in the marriage idea.
What is really strange about the excuse making for the Tory lead in last night's Opinium - that it was only because the Tories threw red meat to their supporters - is that it hasn't dawned on the people spinning that happens at Election time too.
"I see Boris got an 80 seat majority" "Yeah but that was only cos he promised what he knew his supporters wanted"
Promises have to be delivered on - especially when you have an 80 seat majority.
Cameron promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands - no ifs, no buts. It went over 300,000 and he went from Coalition to majority while Ed led on Net Satisfaction and Labour led the VI for years
Yep - it turned out people didn't want Ed to be PM and worried that there would be too much chaos were he to take charge. On a direct match-up, they trusted Dave more, as all the polling indicated in the lead up to the election.
Blimey, don't waste a review today boys. An Umpire giving Roy out when the ball hit him above the pad. Corrected, of course but make sure you have a review in hand. That was a howler.
Blimey, don't waste a review today boys. An Umpire giving Roy out when the balls hit him above the pad. Corrected, of course but make sure you have a review in hand. That was a howler.
Is there a missing apostrophe there or are Messrs Hazlewood and Starc indulging in some kind of weird fetish?
but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite)
In what sense is Johnson not part of the metropolitan elite?
Cos they all can't stand him and their endless bleating and whining about how awful he is endears him to many of his supporters. On balance I think the more moderate approach of Starmer is more effective so far.
Starmer doesn't want it badly enough. I don't even think he despises tories to the necessary degree. It's like asking Lance out of Detectorists to organise the October Revolution.
Blimey, don't waste a review today boys. An Umpire giving Roy out when the balls hit him above the pad. Corrected, of course but make sure you have a review in hand. That was a howler.
Is there a missing apostrophe there or are Messrs Hazlewood and Starc indulging in some kind of weird fetish?
An extra "s" probably. Bairstow could have been out about 3x by now.
but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite)
In what sense is Johnson not part of the metropolitan elite?
He doesn’t deserve to be in the intellectual elite?
Palpably true but we should cut him some slack because longcovid might be responsible for this. The virus is known to have some odd symptoms and it's possible that "turns people into blustering buffoons with the morals of an alley cat and the attention span of a mosquito" is one of them.
The question was asked this morning why conservatives like me who voted remain but support Brexit as a democratic requirement have not withdrawn their support, following Boris reckless attitude to the WDA
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
It was me who asked the original question and I am grateful to you for such a detailed response. However, while it explains why you won't back Labour, it doesn't explain why you continue to back the Tories. It's the latter bit that genuinely puzzles me - especially today after the Lord Chancellor has stated he believes there are acceptable ways to break the rule of law.
I thought I had to be honest.
The problem I have is that everyone seems to agree that obstacles to the internal GB-NI market and the EU preventing the UK deciding on its own state aid rules but nobody has announced an alternative that is feasible other than condemn the breaking of the WDA, probably as they know it would go down like a lead balloon in the red wall seats
And it is not just Brexit I actually think HMG have done a reasonable job on covid and of course I absolutely would back Rishi to deal with this economic disaster.
The economics maybe trump everything for me and I not only trust Rishi I want him as PM asap
Unproven, good at giving money away, too soon to see him as a future PM.
We literally spent hours last night discussing it but ok
The impending culture war with your human rights lawyer of a leader will be absolutely glorious
Oh just stop trolling you useless waste of space. You contribute absolutely nothing to this site.
Oh dear - maybe you'd like him 'cancelled'?
I’ve told the odious little troll what I think of him, and have left it at that. The only person talking about “cancel culture” is you.
Why is it necessary to be so unpleasant and nasty and personal with your comments?
Gallowgate has form for this. I know my opinions on here are controversial and I get a great deal of brickbats , but I expect them to be answered by counter arguments and not insults.
Gallowgate has a particular penchant for using pejorative terms for people with learning difficulties, which I find really offensive.
Comments
The law is the law and that can be changed.
I'm interested in what is going on in your head. Are you just being stubborn now, or can you really not see what is wrong with unilaterally defaulting on an agreement, whether a bet or a debt or an international agreement? Changing the law has nothing to do with the issue.
Just like a mortgage or a debt cannot be modified unilaterally.
You may not “believe” in international law but that’s another issue.
Breaking the law in a specific and very limited way. Its literally being used as a tactic to try and move an EU red line. Thats all, not even to secure anything of substance. Don't the understand how it wholly undermines HMG's ability to demand that others uphold the law?
Yes, people have bleated on about Iraq as an "illegal" war. But the war was legal, mandated as such by the AG interpreting UN Resolutions. It was legal because the law officer said it was legal. In this case it is illegal and accepted as such the law officer who says "who cares". Madness. I don't care about the tactical pros and cons of the issue at hand, its the utter demolition of credibility of the rule of law that is the problem.
Agreements don't last forever.
From 11 Sep: Ahem
Any unionist who says that is shooting themselves in the head. It is insane.
16-24 YES = 84% NO =16%
25-34 YES = 75% NO=25%
35-44 YES = 57% NO =43%
45-54 YES = 52% NO =48%
55-64 YES = 45% NO = 55%
65+ YES = 34% NO = 66%
That makes him once see sense.
His zeal will never be quenched.
Till someone lamps him.
However none of that is relevant.
The relevant points are:
1) The domestic courts have rules that ministers have an obligation to respect international law (that cannot be changed by Parliament); and
2) Whether we SHOULD break our treaty commitments. Not whether we CAN, but whether we SHOULD.
The Treaty of Utrecht was agreed in 1715.
The WDA was agreed 10 months ago and ratified in the UK parliament 8 months ago.
BBC News - After covid: 'Working from home' is long term ambition
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54125620
1) Different Government to the original signatory
2) Manifesto/electoral commitment to reject the agreement and certainly the absence of a manifesto commitment to uphold it!
3) Facts to come to light which weren't available at the signing of the original agreement
4) The full provisions of the agreement to have actually come into force
5) mutual consent to make changes to the environment
6) incompatability with pre-existing laws
7) (i'm getting desperate here) reasonable passage of time
What is even more outrageous about all this is that the UK Government isn't even seeking to repudiate the agreement in total and withdraw from it. Which would be legal if unwise. It expects the Agreement to still stand in law, to retain such benefits of that agreement as they exist (such as access to the Single Market for Northern Irish businesses*) and presumably to reserve the right to seek enforcement of its provisions should the other party to the agreement not uphold it. Whilst utterly rejecting the right of the EU to seek enforcement or penalty of the UK's unilateral breaking of clauses and UK responsibilities contained therein.
I look forward to the EU implementing unilateral amendments to bits they don't like on their side. Perhaps increasing the financial cost to the UK of the treaty (after all the NI is getting access to the Single Market for free!). Or rewriting of whatever other provision they see fit to maintain the integrity of their border that was supposed to be guaranteed by the UK in the Irish Sea.
*astonishingly this morning Tory fatheads like Hannan are arguing that access to the single market rebadged as "NI being subject to EU regulatory framework" are a burden that we should repudiate as well!
I will try to answer this honestly and the key is as to what the alternatives are and are they viable. With respect I have dismissed the Lib Dems as I consider they are entirely irrelevant and will struggle to produce a coherent narrative going forward
However, it must be remembered (as HYUFD constantly reminds everyone) I voted for Tony Blair twice as the conservative government in 1997 was a spent force and he was the newbie on the block with charisma and charm.
Today Labour is in a better position, having deposed Corbyn and his toxic group, but Keir Starmer is very bland, a metropolitan human rights lawyer (elite), and has no policies. Of course, his test is about to arrive with the ECHR into anti-semitism in the labour party and his need to purge all those including Corbyn out of the labour party is essential otherwise he will not be able to have any creditability on the subject
However, to return to Brexit I listened to Rachel Reeves on Marr this morning, (a far more competent prospective chancellor than anything Annalise Dodds could ever aspire to) and the points Marr drew (or did not) out of her were in regard to the WDA splitting the UK internal market and the issue of state aid
When asked she accepted it is wrong for the internal market to be influenced by the EU and that the UK ability to grant state aid as an independent country was paramount
However, she had no real answer on how to overcome the internal market problem other than to attack the breach of the WDA and on state aid she said Germany and France provide extensive state aid already within the EU. So, we had the hypocrisy of condemning Boris rejecting the WDA but saying it is ok for Germany and France to ignore state aid rules in the EU.
Marr tried to push her on what labour would do to resolve these issues, but her response was just the bland ‘get a deal’ and stop discussing Brexit as we are in a pandemic.
And there is one of my problems with labour, they are not prepared to say what they will do if the EU impasse continues and results in UK walking away from the EU or how labour would deal with the internal GB – NI market and state aid under the terms of the WDA
Until I can see and hear a creditable alternative solution to this impasse and other wider issues on covid and the economy from anyone outside the conservative party than I will remain in support of the party
BBC News - Coronavirus: Cases in France leap past 10,000 a day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54137319
Is everything in place for “no deal” for example? Why are they fannying-on about the WA when we should be getting things ready for no deal if necessary.
I wouldn't say that is "perfectly OK" since we don't live in a "perfectly OK" world. If we did, I'd be looking to eliminate COVID19, cancer and plenty else before worrying about changing the law.
https://twitter.com/sblack505/status/1305101236358742016?s=20
The Withdrawal Agreement contains mutually agreed provisions for enforcement/remedy should one or other side break their obligations under the agreement. Does he believe that the UK should accept any judgements in relation to this?
The UK is proposing to change domestic law to allow ministers to take action contrary to/are illegal under the treaty. But not repudiate the treaty itself. Does Philip believe that this unilateral action changes the status or provisions of the agreement in INTERNATIONAL law?
Should a UK minister, acting under domestic law, follow through on the breaking of the treaty does he accept that, as long as the Treaty is still in place then the EU have the right to seek remedy, under International law, through the mutally agreed enforcement actions?
Should that remedy be granted, should the UK accept this?
I do not want no deal but to be honest to fulfil Rachel Reeves comments this morning labour to would have to no deal
The state aid issue is remarkable. A Tory government wants the freedom to subsidise chosen industries. This was why Corbyn was anti-EU. He wanted to do the same. It is driven by Cummings and his grand visions. The moonshot probably is too.
Why must you require Labour to have a plan when the government doesn’t seem to have one either?
What they and the LibDems have got right is placing Brexit in the past tense. We left. It is done. The referendum mandate has been delivered. Argument over, move on. The battle is then of course what the UK does outside the UK, and the problem all parties have is that nobody can agree on a route forward that works practically and politically.
For me the GFA always was the unsquareable circle. We cannot have an open border between ROI and NI and between NI and GB if the UK has different customs arrangements and standards than ROI. Ultimately the government has to choose between tearing up the GFA - and with it any chance of both peace and trade deals - or tearing up the "EU = EEA = CU" nonsense.
We left. We want to plow our own path. EEA membership as an associate member of EFTA plus a UK specific Customs Union does the job. As for migration, simply apply the existing rule allowing EU members to both set rules for migration and deport EU citizens who flout them. We'd have to declare that as something Shagger had won obviously which doesn't really matter.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/12/make-eu-take-theirthreats-table-pass-bill/
I'm off for lunch.
I predict a lot of not mentioning stuff by the SCons before next May.
'https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1305102969927618561?s=20
But then again I don't read Big G's posts because they are self-serving and contribute nothing more than an insight into a particularly vacuous type of political mind.
He seems a very decent type but out of his depth politics-wise.
And even more so, if such a "threat" has only just come to light, why have the Government been planning these changes and seeking legal advice on them for months...
Of course, as Rochdale Pioneers made clear yesterday, the issue of the certification of UK food exports has been known about for four years. It has been previously highlighted (including in Government No deal preparation guidance) as a 'risk' of what could happen post Brexit without a new comprehensive trade agreement.
None of it is new. All of it has been known about and fully understood. And its theoretical implication for exports into Northern Ireland as a de facto member of the single market subject to EU regulations.
If he were a footballer his scouting report would read
"Guaranteed to put a shift in."
If a law is not ethical, then what is it?
Protesters shouted anti-police slogans and blocked the entrance to the emergency room where the two officers are being treated, police and witnesses said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838
https://twitter.com/BillFOXLA/status/1305055356221964290?s=20
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/1305093072196448261?s=20
It isn't the EU threatening food blockade, it is the UK. Because in 110 days time all food imports and exports will rely on the functioning of the Goods Vehicle Movement Service - a massive software suite that doesn't yet exist or even is being built. That in turn will rely on the human infrastructure of customs officials not hired, of standards officials not hired, and of everyone in the industry from manufacturer to importer to haulier to wholesaler having a clear set of guidelines to work to. In 110 days.
The EU isn't saying this. The UK is. In 110 days the truck driver is personally liable for the data on his vehicle's Kent Access Permit being correct of he gets a £300 fine. That the KAP, the system that generates the KAP, the system that compiles the data to go onto a KAP, the truck parks, the officials etc etc etc do not exist yet is not Michael Barnier's fault.
Its Michael Gove's fault.
No Deal means everything stops. Remember that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727573/West-End-theatres-reopen-month-social-distancing-measures.html
‘Er, cripes, yes, well, you know, the way things, umm, yes, they don’t, er, what’s the word I’m looking, looking for, yes, they haven’t gone quite as, you know, thought they er, might. We are all, really, when it comes, comes down to it, just very, or even, truthfully, completely, useless. I couldn’t, well, couldn’t organise a fuck up in a, a, a, cat house.’
The admission comes as his world beating track and trace system again sent a prominent lawyer from Newcastle all the way from Ashington to Gretna in order to get a his girlfriend a Covid test, although his friends on PB reminded him that this gives them the perfect excuse for a wedding without the fuzz asking why the actual fuck they are breaking quarantine.
M. Barnier, consulted by Zoom, commented, ‘Nothing surprises me, other than the fact he has actually grasped how useless he is.’
A prominent sacked civil servant in the cabinet office muttered ‘fucking truth twisters’ into his whisky as his successor hurriedly tried to slap a D-notice on all media outlets.
Sir Keir Starmer made no comment, other than to reiterate he wants to see Brexit done and the pandemic defeated.
The problem I have is that everyone seems to agree that obstacles to the internal GB-NI market and the EU preventing the UK deciding on its own state aid rules but nobody has announced an alternative that is feasible other than condemn the breaking of the WDA, probably as they know it would go down like a lead balloon in the red wall seats
And it is not just Brexit I actually think HMG have done a reasonable job on covid and of course I absolutely would back Rishi to deal with this economic disaster.
The economics maybe trump everything for me and I not only trust Rishi I want him as PM asap
"I see Boris got an 80 seat majority"
"Yeah but that was only cos he promised what he knew his supporters wanted"
Likewise they promised a deal with the EU they can’t deliver. Again, clearly showing contempt for the public.
Sorry but hasn;'t Bernie seen the polls....?
hasn't he read the sages on PB...?
another effing Trump booster.....
Although truthfully there is a certain irony that your gf wants you to drive her to Gretna for a test...
Fair enough on Sunak.
Gallowgate has a particular penchant for using pejorative terms for people with learning difficulties, which I find really offensive.