Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Now the Johnson/Cummings move to change the Brexit agreement threatens a US-UK trade deal – politica

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 16 in General
Now the Johnson/Cummings move to change the Brexit agreement threatens a US-UK trade deal – politicalbetting.com

Four senior congressmen write to Boris Johnson to reiterate there will be no US-UK trade deal if the legislation to override the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement isn’t pulled pic.twitter.com/Q3n7yewn0S

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • First, and the intervention from US Congressmen, after the US was held up as the city on the hill against EU encroachment by many Brexiters, is a form of richly poetic justice.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,180
    They're also not just any old 4 congressmen. The Chair of Ways & Means (hugely important), Chair of Foreign Affairs (nearly as equally massive) & its sub-committee Chair for Europe. These are big hitters.

    I doubt it will get much coverage over here as people are too ignorant but this is very significant.
  • Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.
  • Foxy said:

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    I am struggling to keep up. Is the oven ready deal back to being a masterful negotiation, or is it still a crap deal that no PM could agree to?
    The oven ready deal was far better than May's deal but the way the EU is trying to abuse it could never be accepted - and so its entirely possible to walk away since in Boris's deal NI was legally recognised as being in the UK's customs arrangements (which wasn't the case in May's crappy deal)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,704
    edited September 16

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    It's the concern about people sticking to their guns that is forcing this (latest) u-turn.

    Although you have a tin ear for these things, understand absolutely nothing about the context or history of the region, and are happy to propose a return to NI of Op Banner, actual grown ups know when they are bluffing.

    Boris is Francis X Hummel and Dom is Captain Darrow.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,095

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    It would only apply if the reason why they wrote the letter were a thing.

    But it isn’t. What matters is that they wrote it, and mean it.
  • IanB2 said:

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    It would only apply if the reason why they wrote the letter were a thing.

    But it isn’t. What matters is that they wrote it, and mean it.
    The reason they wrote the letter is it is an election year and this is in the news.

    Lets say hypothetically the EU don't reach a compromise with Boris this year (thus keeping this issue alive) and that hypothetically Boris doesn't back down so that we crash out in January with an essentially voided NI Protocol and that hypothetically Biden wins and is inaugurated in January.

    Does Biden and the US Congress simply throw a fit because of the fact a Protocol they had nothing in writing was breached? Or does Biden act Presidential and help facilitate a new agreement that works for both sides and claim credit for it?
  • Two of the many things that Brexiteers don't understand are US politics and the US attitude to the UK. Living in the US for five years, I never heard the phrase "special relationship" uttered by any American. The only Americans who support Brexit are right wing nut jobs like Steve Bannon who think the EU is a communist plot. Of the small percentage of Americans who even know or care, most think that the whole thing is insane.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 40,725
    edited September 16

    Two of the many things that Brexiteers don't understand are US politics and the US attitude to the UK. Living in the US for five years, I never heard the phrase "special relationship" uttered by any American. The only Americans who support Brexit are right wing nut jobs like Steve Bannon who think the EU is a communist plot. Of the small percentage of Americans who even know or care, most think that the whole thing is insane.

    Whether they understand why Britain wants its independence is no more relevant than if we understand why they wanted theirs.

    The Americans are masters at dealing with the world as it is. If we are independent they will deal with that, if we aren't they will deal with that too.
  • IanB2 said:

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    It would only apply if the reason why they wrote the letter were a thing.

    But it isn’t. What matters is that they wrote it, and mean it.
    The reason they wrote the letter is it is an election year and this is in the news.

    Lets say hypothetically the EU don't reach a compromise with Boris this year (thus keeping this issue alive) and that hypothetically Boris doesn't back down so that we crash out in January with an essentially voided NI Protocol and that hypothetically Biden wins and is inaugurated in January.

    Does Biden and the US Congress simply throw a fit because of the fact a Protocol they had nothing in writing was breached? Or does Biden act Presidential and help facilitate a new agreement that works for both sides and claim credit for it?
    They're US Congressmen.

    They have a 2 year term. Factor in primaries and they're never not running for office.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,509

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    I think we need a new dictum, "Philip Thompson Applies".

    That's for someone whose utterances are not only predictable, but are usually repeated around 7000 times.
  • Foxy said:

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    I am struggling to keep up. Is the oven ready deal back to being a masterful negotiation, or is it still a crap deal that no PM could agree to?
    The oven ready deal was far better than May's deal but the way the EU is trying to abuse it could never be accepted - and so its entirely possible to walk away since in Boris's deal NI was legally recognised as being in the UK's customs arrangements (which wasn't the case in May's crappy deal)
    What actual evidence is there of the EU trying to abuse it? Even if someone in the negotiating team did make a threat isn't that just part of heated negotiations? In diplomatic terms this legislation seems like declaring war after receiving a strongly worded letter from a country's ambassador.

    The EU hasn't actually done anything yet and as has been pointed out by many others the Withdrawal Agreement has plenty of provisions to counter a bad faith interpretation on behalf of the EU. If that doesn't work then start legislating.
  • IanB2 said:

    Mandy Rice Davies Applies.

    There's no votes in an election year upsetting the Irish lobby. But ultimately even if the NI Protocol is utterly destroyed alternative arrangements would ultimately be agreed and that would supercede and replace the need for the NI Protocol.

    Alternative arrangements were always a viable solution but it takes a bit of pressure on the EU to get them to want to agree them. Boris is doing the right thing, he just needs to stick to his guns.

    It would only apply if the reason why they wrote the letter were a thing.

    But it isn’t. What matters is that they wrote it, and mean it.
    The reason they wrote the letter is it is an election year and this is in the news.

    Lets say hypothetically the EU don't reach a compromise with Boris this year (thus keeping this issue alive) and that hypothetically Boris doesn't back down so that we crash out in January with an essentially voided NI Protocol and that hypothetically Biden wins and is inaugurated in January.

    Does Biden and the US Congress simply throw a fit because of the fact a Protocol they had nothing in writing was breached? Or does Biden act Presidential and help facilitate a new agreement that works for both sides and claim credit for it?
    They're US Congressmen.

    They have a 2 year term. Factor in primaries and they're never not running for office.
    Indeed. So right now the vote winner is to say they're standing up to Britain.

    If next year Biden facilitates a new replacement agreement between the UK and the EU then in 2022 they can bask in the glow at that. They won't refuse a deal because the previous agreement was breached after a new one was agreed.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 6,231
    edited September 16
    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,095

    Two of the many things that Brexiteers don't understand are US politics and the US attitude to the UK. Living in the US for five years, I never heard the phrase "special relationship" uttered by any American. The only Americans who support Brexit are right wing nut jobs like Steve Bannon who think the EU is a communist plot. Of the small percentage of Americans who even know or care, most think that the whole thing is insane.

    Whether they understand why Britain wants its independence is no more relevant than if we understand why they wanted theirs.

    The Americans are masters at dealing with the world as it is. If we are independent they will deal with that, if we aren't they will deal with that too.
    Lol. All too often the US deals with other parts of the world in ways that betray an utter lack of understanding.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    This all ends with Irish reunification. Might as well get on with it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    Two of the many things that Brexiteers don't understand are US politics and the US attitude to the UK. Living in the US for five years, I never heard the phrase "special relationship" uttered by any American. The only Americans who support Brexit are right wing nut jobs like Steve Bannon who think the EU is a communist plot. Of the small percentage of Americans who even know or care, most think that the whole thing is insane.

    Whether they understand why Britain wants its independence is no more relevant than if we understand why they wanted theirs.

    The Americans are masters at dealing with the world as it is. If we are independent they will deal with that, if we aren't they will deal with that too.
    Your chosen specialised subject is the throwing off of the colonial yoke, but you see no interest or importance in studying and trying to understand the history of other examples of it? Not sure whether that is more funny or frightening.
  • Alistair said:
    Could be a really, REALLY shy Trump voter?
  • That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    You like the expression "realpolitik." Sadly, it is shorthand for "Fuck 'em, we can park our tanks on their lawn by next Tuesday." When that is not the case, it doesn't work.
  • DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    I absolutely agree.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,095

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    You really do seem to think that we will have the time to repent at leisure.
  • That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    We are supplicants Phillip made much weaker by Boris's ludicrous optimistic assertions at every turn. The "oven ready deal", the "world beating test and trace app" to name but two. He's not up to it. Even TMay was a giant in comparison.
  • IanB2 said:

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    You really do seem to think that we will have the time to repent at leisure.
    Oh we will, but I have no intention of us repenting. Alternative arrangements were always the reasonable solution to the NI border issues - there's no pressure on the EU and Ireland to compromise and find alternative arrangements if they know the UK will give them everything they want by refusing to compromise.

    If the UK stands up for itself and the EU stands up for itself then alternative arrangements become the only solution left. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198
    Foxy said:

    This all ends with Irish reunification. Might as well get on with it.

    Or a return to the troubles first. Which is POLITICALLY most unattractive to Johnson and Cummings? I would guess reunification.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    Talking of grown ups an amusing and substantive piece by George Osborne with some useful lessons for the Boris government:https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/dave-texts-wtf-i-call-him-back-she-s-never-forgiven-you-a4547746.html

    I miss him. "I’ve been keeping a diary myself of the last few days (also only loosely based on real events)." "

    More substantively:
    "But there was something else much more important that shines through — we liked each other. It wasn’t some school or university dining club that brought us together; we met each other in our twenties through a shared belief that the Tory party had to change. From then on we had each other’s back. Most of us still do. It made for a more rational, collegiate and engaged government than anything we’ve seen since."

    Well, quite. May and Boris are both loners in their ways. Successful government needs a team working together and supporting each other when the going gets tough. I am not sure we have that right now. A little dig at Gove in there too, I think.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,095

    IanB2 said:

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    You really do seem to think that we will have the time to repent at leisure.
    Oh we will, but I have no intention of us repenting. Alternative arrangements were always the reasonable solution to the NI border issues - there's no pressure on the EU and Ireland to compromise and find alternative arrangements if they know the UK will give them everything they want by refusing to compromise.

    If the UK stands up for itself and the EU stands up for itself then alternative arrangements become the only solution left. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
    If only you had eliminated the possibility of a damaging and possibly deadly f**k up, that might be reassuring.

    As it is, you are clearly enjoying your trolling, winding everyone up with your peculiar brand of stubborn ignorance. Thankfully what happens won’t be up to you.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    You like the expression "realpolitik." Sadly, it is shorthand for "Fuck 'em, we can park our tanks on their lawn by next Tuesday." When that is not the case, it doesn't work.
    For some, it's an irregular noun.

    My country can do as it pleases, the agreed rules are just guidance, really.

    Your country just has to adapt to pragmatic reality.

    If your nation/union really is sufficiently powerful, this works, of course.
  • No trade deal with the US was always going to be the consequence of the UK playing fast and loose with the Good Friday Agreement.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    Every year in the US is an election year (except probably the first year in the 4 year presidential election cycle). So we would need a deal done next year and that requires it going through congress and Congress have already said that with the new NI that's not happening.

    And politicians want to be elected - so they aren't going to vote for something that loses them Irish votes (and there are a lot of Irish votes in the US, including millions who haven't ever been to Ireland).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 35,620
    edited September 16
    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302
    edited September 16
    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    I share your bewilderment and was reflecting on this phenomenon yesterday.

    I can see why I may fancy a test to discover whether I have ever had the virus (though this would be mainly curiosity) but why would I want one to see if I have it now? If I had symptoms what would a test achieve? - I`d be isolating in the remotest room of our house, as already discussed with my family, anyway. If I didn`t have symptoms I`m not eligible for a test and would be wasting time and money. Am I missing something?

    I think that people want at test "because it`s there", make up symptoms they don`t have (or that they are imagining), and may, I suspect, have a tinge of disappointment when the result comes back "negative". Bizarre.

    Does anyone know whether protections are in place to stop people repeatedly going for tests just for the heck of it?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,563
    edited September 16
    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The government has made absolutely nothing clear. It has accused the EU of threatening a blockade of Northern Ireland but provided not a scintilla of evidence that this has actually happened. The legislation, as it stands, can be used to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement for whatever reasona at whatever time. That only changes if the legislation is rewritten.

  • Foxy said:

    This all ends with Irish reunification. Might as well get on with it.

    Or a return to the troubles first. Which is POLITICALLY most unattractive to Johnson and Cummings? I would guess reunification.
    I think cheering Irish reunification at this moment in time is the last thing anyone should be doing

  • eek said:

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    Every year in the US is an election year (except probably the first year in the 4 year presidential election cycle). So we would need a deal done next year and that requires it going through congress and Congress have already said that with the new NI that's not happening.

    And politicians want to be elected - so they aren't going to vote for something that loses them Irish votes (and there are a lot of Irish votes in the US, including millions who haven't ever been to Ireland).
    Congress have said with things as they stand they won't. Things won't be like this for evermore.

    If we refuse to play ball and if the EU and USA can't make us back down then the only viable solution left is for the EU and UK to agree alternative solutions, which is what should have been done all along and is what the EU and Ireland were planning until May lost her majority and the EU decided to weaponise the border and play fast and loose with the Good Friday Agreement.

    Once alternative solutions are agreed there would be no reason for Congress to object on these grounds.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    A lot will depend on Irish diplomacy. They've worked very hard to build a strong diplomatic relationship with the US. Plucky country stands up to British bullying is a story that resonates deeply in the American psyche.

    I imagine they will be looking for Britain to fix the problem they created, and provide some sort of guarantee of it not being repeated - though I'm struggling to see what could create the necessary trust.

    The psychology of betrayal applies. It's incredibly difficult to fix. I'm reminded of Harry Potter's advice to Voldemort to try for some remorse. It's not going to be a matter of accepting facts on the ground.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    Firstly, they have made it clear that for so long as NI remains in the SM what is delivered there has to meet the standards of the SM. Secondly, they are unaccountably dragging their heels about continuing the accreditation and regulation of UK food manufacturers which is completely acceptable to them today and for the last several years. Thirdly, in the event that the EU objected to the delivery of food from non accredited (by them) sources it gives us the power in law to override that requirement. So it does address a hypothetical problem. Why it was necessary to address it now rather than when and if it ever arose remains a mystery hidden within a conundrum.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960
    It’s a sad sight to see hard Buccaneering Brexiteers waking up to our new diplomatic reality.
  • As a master of futorology, possessed of an extraordinary intellect and supported by the most mashed-up, far-out, maverick group of thinkers on the planet, shouldn't Dominic Cummings have realised that there would be an uptick in demand for covid tests when the schools returned after a summer in which social distancing rules had been relaxed? It's not as if Sir Keith has not been banging on about sorting out test and trace for the last few months, is it?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    IanB2 said:

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    You really do seem to think that we will have the time to repent at leisure.
    Oh we will, but I have no intention of us repenting. Alternative arrangements were always the reasonable solution to the NI border issues - there's no pressure on the EU and Ireland to compromise and find alternative arrangements if they know the UK will give them everything they want by refusing to compromise.

    If the UK stands up for itself and the EU stands up for itself then alternative arrangements become the only solution left. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
    You have no intention? That is proper delusional. You have mentally appointed yourself Wormtongue to Johnson's Saruman when you are several thousand rungs below, and you don't realise that when Johnson has finished shitting on other people he'll get round to shitting on the little people, including you. Your protestations that you're one of the good guys who trolled pb for 3 years and counting on his behalf are not going to cut it.

    Actually that's wrong, Wormtongue is of course Cummings.
  • FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,198

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    You are not wrong BigG. however this situation has been forecast for months. My understanding is that individual hospitals have been in readiness for an acceleration in 'business' in the weeks after schools go back since mid-August. As it is, so far the problems have not been of the scale anticipated, so hats off to the Government for that.

    But back to testing? Where was Dido when everyone else got the above memo?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 11,396

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The government has made absolutely nothing clear. It has accused the EU of threatening a blockade of Northern Ireland but provided not a scintilla of evidence that this has actually happened. The legislation, as it stands, can be used to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement for whatever reasona at whatever time. That only changes if the legislation is rewritten.

    Indeed, Respectable governments of the non-rogue state variety don't go around inventing Acts of War by neighbours for political advantage. In fact the only other leader I can think of who is doing this is Putin.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 145
    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 946
    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    According to yesterday's figures, 98.63% of tests came back negative.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,389
    Note Peter T King is a GOP congressman, tgis opposition is across both parties not just the Democrats
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    The EU couldn't blockade the Irish Sea either, it has no capability to do so.

    All that is needed is for the UK to fill in a form saying that all food products going to Northern Ireland conform to EU rules, as they currently do.
  • DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    Firstly, they have made it clear that for so long as NI remains in the SM what is delivered there has to meet the standards of the SM. Secondly, they are unaccountably dragging their heels about continuing the accreditation and regulation of UK food manufacturers which is completely acceptable to them today and for the last several years. Thirdly, in the event that the EU objected to the delivery of food from non accredited (by them) sources it gives us the power in law to override that requirement. So it does address a hypothetical problem. Why it was necessary to address it now rather than when and if it ever arose remains a mystery hidden within a conundrum.

    Not really. They wanted a fight with the EU and to revive Brexit as a political issue. All the messaging from the Conservative party attacking Labour since the vote shows that.

    There are dispute procedures in place for any disagreements around the implementation of the WA, but they require the production of evidence. And therein lies the UK government's problem. Once you move from hyperbolic claim to practical reality its entire case falls to pieces.

  • Pulpstar said:

    Note Peter T King is a GOP congressman, tgis opposition is across both parties not just the Democrats

    Peter King is a long-time supporter of the IRA and an all-round scumbag.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960
    Why are hard Brexiteers attracted to the Balkanisation of Britain? They seem to be quite comfortable with the idea rather than repelled by it.
  • tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Well said.

    My wife works on the front line of a care home. She's had a blood antibody test and is getting a swab antigen test every single week. The care home has boxes and boxes of swab kits and all staff and residents have to get tested every single week. They are getting prioritised.

    For someone healthy who has the sniffles and wants to get tested not being able to do so may be irritating. If the care staff etc cease to be tested in order to add more capacity for "the worried well" then would that be an improvement? I think no.

    Approximately a quarter of a million daily tests are happening but half of that is immediately accounted for by routine testing of NHS staff and care staff and residents.
  • tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    You are not wrong BigG. however this situation has been forecast for months. My understanding is that individual hospitals have been in readiness for an acceleration in 'business' in the weeks after schools go back since mid-August. As it is, so far the problems have not been of the scale anticipated, so hats off to the Government for that.

    But back to testing? Where was Dido when everyone else got the above memo?

    Yep, the government has had months to get to grips with this. Starmer has been banging on about getting the system sorted in just about every PMQ he has done. There is no Captain Hindsight about it.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309
    Jonathan said:

    Why are hard Brexiteers attracted to the Balkanisation of Britain? They seem to be quite comfortable with the idea rather than repelled by it.

    It seems to this soft remainer that the current division of Ireland is a textbook case of balkanisation.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,493

    Foxy said:

    This all ends with Irish reunification. Might as well get on with it.

    Or a return to the troubles first. Which is POLITICALLY most unattractive to Johnson and Cummings? I would guess reunification.
    I think cheering Irish reunification at this moment in time is the last thing anyone should be doing

    It's inevitable. Brexit just compressed the timeline.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    Jonathan said:

    It’s a sad sight to see hard Buccaneering Brexiteers waking up to our new diplomatic reality.

    Buccaneers usually wound up on the end of a rope, in Davy Jones Locker or as slave traders as I recall.

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Well said.

    My wife works on the front line of a care home. She's had a blood antibody test and is getting a swab antigen test every single week. The care home has boxes and boxes of swab kits and all staff and residents have to get tested every single week. They are getting prioritised.

    For someone healthy who has the sniffles and wants to get tested not being able to do so may be irritating. If the care staff etc cease to be tested in order to add more capacity for "the worried well" then would that be an improvement? I think no.

    Approximately a quarter of a million daily tests are happening but half of that is immediately accounted for by routine testing of NHS staff and care staff and residents.
    NHS staff are not routinely tested.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    Firstly, they have made it clear that for so long as NI remains in the SM what is delivered there has to meet the standards of the SM. Secondly, they are unaccountably dragging their heels about continuing the accreditation and regulation of UK food manufacturers which is completely acceptable to them today and for the last several years. Thirdly, in the event that the EU objected to the delivery of food from non accredited (by them) sources it gives us the power in law to override that requirement. So it does address a hypothetical problem. Why it was necessary to address it now rather than when and if it ever arose remains a mystery hidden within a conundrum.

    Not really. They wanted a fight with the EU and to revive Brexit as a political issue. All the messaging from the Conservative party attacking Labour since the vote shows that.

    There are dispute procedures in place for any disagreements around the implementation of the WA, but they require the production of evidence. And therein lies the UK government's problem. Once you move from hyperbolic claim to practical reality its entire case falls to pieces.

    I think they want to push resolution of the acceptance of UK standards for production of food (and no doubt much else) in the negotiations. But I am trying to find rationality in a frankly daft position.
  • FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,493
    IshmaelZ said:



    Actually that's wrong, Wormtongue is of course Cummings.

    Cummings is more like Steerpike.

    if ever he had harboured a conscience in his tough narrow breast he had by now dug out and flung away the awkward thing. Flung it so far away that were he ever to need it again he could never find it.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 3,302
    edited September 16
    Jonathan said:

    Why are hard Brexiteers attracted to the Balkanisation of Britain? They seem to be quite comfortable with the idea rather than repelled by it.

    An interesting question. I had assumed that Brexiteers are largely unionists, but I have met a few who are quite happy about Scotland breaking away (we may regard them as "little-Englander" types, I guess).

    I also had a chat with Chris Heaton-Harris about this a year or so ago, we were talking about the ERG`s tactics and I said "Well, of course, ERG members will also be concerned about the Union". His reply surprised me: "Well, some are".
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
  • Jonathan said:

    Why are hard Brexiteers attracted to the Balkanisation of Britain? They seem to be quite comfortable with the idea rather than repelled by it.

    Personally a belief that the nation state, democratically elected, can best solve a nations own problems is entirely compatible with both Brexit and Balkanisation.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The government has made absolutely nothing clear. It has accused the EU of threatening a blockade of Northern Ireland but provided not a scintilla of evidence that this has actually happened. The legislation, as it stands, can be used to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement for whatever reasona at whatever time. That only changes if the legislation is rewritten.

    Unless they accept the currently acceptable accreditation of UK foodstuffs we would not be able to supply food to NI under the agreement. That is indisputable and obvious. The solution is the acceptance of our standards (which are of course EU standards) going forward with some form of adjudication should these bifurcate at some future point.

    And we don't need this bill to tear up the WA. We can repudiate this agreement any time we want. We would, of course , have to live with the consequences.
  • FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

    Barnier started this.




    He's used to playing tough man and expecting the UK to roll over and play dead. Instead the UK is standing up for itself. Good.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 946

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

    Dunno if you would count it as evidence, but Lord Frost tweeted... "I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland."

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    This all ends with Irish reunification. Might as well get on with it.

    Or a return to the troubles first. Which is POLITICALLY most unattractive to Johnson and Cummings? I would guess reunification.
    I think cheering Irish reunification at this moment in time is the last thing anyone should be doing

    It's inevitable. Brexit just compressed the timeline.
    Irish reunification and Scottish Independence are the end game. Just get on with it, and do it as amicably as possible. We all have to live on these islands.
  • tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Indeed. An unemployed woman lying on an official form and saying she is a key worker is fraud not to be congratulated as ingenious. The media is utterly irresponsible if they encourage fraud as an answer.

    The moral of that story is that availability is there for key workers which doesn't mean that everyone including the unemployed should lie and pretend to be a key worker.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    Gadfly said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

    Dunno if you would count it as evidence, but Lord Frost tweeted... "I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland."

    Err, fill out the forms to be listed then. Doh!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Many people, specifically front line workers in the NHS and care will quite correctly have had multiple tests. So 20m tests does not equiperate to 20m tested or anything like it. Approximately 100k tests are being given to these front line workers every day. Most will be repeats but that is necessary.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,702

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Well said.

    My wife works on the front line of a care home. She's had a blood antibody test and is getting a swab antigen test every single week. The care home has boxes and boxes of swab kits and all staff and residents have to get tested every single week. They are getting prioritised.

    For someone healthy who has the sniffles and wants to get tested not being able to do so may be irritating. If the care staff etc cease to be tested in order to add more capacity for "the worried well" then would that be an improvement? I think no.

    Approximately a quarter of a million daily tests are happening but half of that is immediately accounted for by routine testing of NHS staff and care staff and residents.
    It’s not just “irritating”, in some cases having a test or not is the difference between being able to go to work (and getting paid) or not.

    If you have any symptoms, you have to report it to your employer. You then cant go to work unless you have a negative test or you wait the 10 days or whatever. Not every employer is paying full wages during that time. A lot will get nothing for the first few days, and then SSP (which is literally nothing) for the remainder.

    Describing it as “irritating” is just showing how out of touch you are.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,569

    Pulpstar said:

    Note Peter T King is a GOP congressman, tgis opposition is across both parties not just the Democrats

    Peter King is a long-time supporter of the IRA and an all-round scumbag.

    Whatever he is, he has a vote in Congress.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309
    tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Perhaps the rule of six breach snoopers could be encouraged to snoop on test scroungers in their spare time? Wanting to know whether or not you have a lethal, contagious disease seems to me a pretty laudable aspiration. I think a poster upthread suggested satirically that people were getting tested purely for shits n giggles, and was taken literally.
  • tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Indeed. An unemployed woman lying on an official form and saying she is a key worker is fraud not to be congratulated as ingenious. The media is utterly irresponsible if they encourage fraud as an answer.

    The moral of that story is that availability is there for key workers which doesn't mean that everyone including the unemployed should lie and pretend to be a key worker.
    breaking the law?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 9,702
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Many people, specifically front line workers in the NHS and care will quite correctly have had multiple tests. So 20m tests does not equiperate to 20m tested or anything like it. Approximately 100k tests are being given to these front line workers every day. Most will be repeats but that is necessary.
    I had multiple tests last week simply because my doctors don’t trust the test. Not sure why.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Indeed. An unemployed woman lying on an official form and saying she is a key worker is fraud not to be congratulated as ingenious. The media is utterly irresponsible if they encourage fraud as an answer.

    The moral of that story is that availability is there for key workers which doesn't mean that everyone including the unemployed should lie and pretend to be a key worker.
    breaking the law?
    Only in a specific and limited way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Well said.

    My wife works on the front line of a care home. She's had a blood antibody test and is getting a swab antigen test every single week. The care home has boxes and boxes of swab kits and all staff and residents have to get tested every single week. They are getting prioritised.

    For someone healthy who has the sniffles and wants to get tested not being able to do so may be irritating. If the care staff etc cease to be tested in order to add more capacity for "the worried well" then would that be an improvement? I think no.

    Approximately a quarter of a million daily tests are happening but half of that is immediately accounted for by routine testing of NHS staff and care staff and residents.
    It’s not just “irritating”, in some cases having a test or not is the difference between being able to go to work (and getting paid) or not.

    If you have any symptoms, you have to report it to your employer. You then cant go to work unless you have a negative test or you wait the 10 days or whatever. Not every employer is paying full wages during that time. A lot will get nothing for the first few days, and then SSP (which is literally nothing) for the remainder.

    Describing it as “irritating” is just showing how out of touch you are.
    This is the problem. The government's line was, entirely correctly, that people should not suffer for doing the right thing. But unless there is ready access to tests they are suffering. Massive testing is the cost of opening up our economy again. We have to deliver it.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,960

    Jonathan said:

    Why are hard Brexiteers attracted to the Balkanisation of Britain? They seem to be quite comfortable with the idea rather than repelled by it.

    Personally a belief that the nation state, democratically elected, can best solve a nations own problems is entirely compatible with both Brexit and Balkanisation.
    And there you have it. They have no problem with the break up of the UK. The destination is English Nationalism, but then again for some it we’ll be freedom for Wessex. Total and utter madness.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    This is caused by children and young people getting a seasonal cold and the parents fear of covid. In my family my sons daughter (8) has had a cold and a test which was negative after a four day wait and my daughter's son (11) has also had a cold and been told to stay off school and if worse after 48 hours have a test

    I was listening to 5 live this morning and an expert on testing provided a detailed explanation of the process and logistics and confirmed that over 200,000 tests a day were being conducted and 20 million completed. If that stat is correct nearly one third of the nation have had a test.

    It is clear that the test rules need to be reviewed and tests prioritised across the UK. The idea of some to open hospital labs to these tests is the wrong thing to do as it is prioritising many unnecessary and non urgent tests over life threatening cancer and other essential non covid related tests.

    Tests are something the anti HMG proponents can attack the government on but the simple truth is no government of any political persuasion would have any other answer than the one proposed by Hancock of prioritising tests
    Many people, specifically front line workers in the NHS and care will quite correctly have had multiple tests. So 20m tests does not equiperate to 20m tested or anything like it. Approximately 100k tests are being given to these front line workers every day. Most will be repeats but that is necessary.
    I had multiple tests last week simply because my doctors don’t trust the test. Not sure why.
    There is a high false negative rate.

    Tests conducted on NHS patients in hospital go to the hospital labs, not to Dido's empire.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,558
    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:

    I've not really paid too much attention to the testing saga, but just watching BBC Breakfast this morning it's starting to make sense. Basically loads of people without symptoms want a test, just because they fancy getting a test. It's like the public's bizarre desire to sit in A&E on a Saturday night.

    I share your bewilderment and was reflecting on this phenomenon yesterday.

    I can see why I may fancy a test to discover whether I have ever had the virus (though this would be mainly curiosity) but why would I want one to see if I have it now? If I had symptoms what would a test achieve? - I`d be isolating in the remotest room of our house, as already discussed with my family, anyway. If I didn`t have symptoms I`m not eligible for a test and would be wasting time and money. Am I missing something?

    I think that people want at test "because it`s there", make up symptoms they don`t have (or that they are imagining), and may, I suspect, have a tinge of disappointment when the result comes back "negative". Bizarre.

    Does anyone know whether protections are in place to stop people repeatedly going for tests just for the heck of it?
    Could it be something to do with sick pay?

    I think UK rules are that close contacts of a case have to isolate for 14 days and aren't tested. This could cause problems if an employer wants a positive test result before paying sick pay.

    Or it could cause problems if sick pay represents a large enough drop in income and a negative test is desired so they can return to work.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 32,693

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

    Barnier started this.




    He's used to playing tough man and expecting the UK to roll over and play dead. Instead the UK is standing up for itself. Good.
    This is exactly what I have been saying without even reading his tweets. This is important and needs movement on the part of the EU. Now.
  • eekeek Posts: 9,241

    tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Indeed. An unemployed woman lying on an official form and saying she is a key worker is fraud not to be congratulated as ingenious. The media is utterly irresponsible if they encourage fraud as an answer.

    The moral of that story is that availability is there for key workers which doesn't mean that everyone including the unemployed should lie and pretend to be a key worker.
    But it's fine to break the law in provided it's only in a specific and limited way - claiming to be someone you aren't to get a test is very specific and very limited (it's a single test).

    And yes you shouldn't do it but Cummings set the precedent of everyone doing what was best for themselves rather than doing what is best for the general public.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,309

    tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Indeed. An unemployed woman lying on an official form and saying she is a key worker is fraud not to be congratulated as ingenious. The media is utterly irresponsible if they encourage fraud as an answer.

    The moral of that story is that availability is there for key workers which doesn't mean that everyone including the unemployed should lie and pretend to be a key worker.
    Hanging is too good for these people.

    Libertarianism going well?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,533


    I had multiple tests last week simply because my doctors don’t trust the test. Not sure why.

    IIUC a PCR test will often return negative just because there isn't a lot of virus to detect yet but it's still growing, so if you're infected you may test negative a couple of times before you finally test positive.
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 946
    The Twitter exchange...

    At 10.37 on 13 September Michel Barnier said:

    "Protocol on IE/NI is not a threat to the integrity of the UK. We agreed this delicate compromise with BorisJohnson & his gov in order to protect peace & stability on island of Ireland. We could not have been clearer about the consequences of Brexit.

    Sticking to facts is also essential. A case in point: The European Union is not refusing to list the United Kingdom as a third country for food imports (SPS). To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries."

    At 13.31 Lord Davis Frost replied:


    "I would like to make a few comments and state a few facts, in my capacity as the PM's negotiator in the current and last autumn's talks.

    On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted.

    On 3rd country listings: the EU knows perfectly well all the details of our food standards rules because we are operating EU rules. The situation on 01 January 2021 is accordingly perfectly clear. We have discussed this frequently with the EU including last week. Any changes in future would be notified to the WTO and EU in the usual way with plenty of lead time.

    The EU lists dozens of countries globally on precisely this basis, without any sort of commitment about the future. Yet it has been made clear to us in the current talks that there is no guarantee of listing us. I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland.

    The EU's position is that listing is needed for Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. So if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB.I hope the EU will yet think better of this. It obviously makes it no easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and the solid future relationship which we all want."
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,108
    edited September 16
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

    Barnier started this.




    He's used to playing tough man and expecting the UK to roll over and play dead. Instead the UK is standing up for itself. Good.
    This is exactly what I have been saying without even reading his tweets. This is important and needs movement on the part of the EU. Now.
    What is it about Brexit means Brexit that these people do not understand?

    On 1/1/21 we are a third country as far as the EU is concerned, so need to apply to be listed according to their regulations, and the WDA.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,012
    IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Perhaps the rule of six breach snoopers could be encouraged to snoop on test scroungers in their spare time? Wanting to know whether or not you have a lethal, contagious disease seems to me a pretty laudable aspiration. I think a poster upthread suggested satirically that people were getting tested purely for shits n giggles, and was taken literally.
    Personally I don't care about this issue. I'm only commenting on it because the media are losing their shit over it and I just thought I'd point out that they themselves are part of the problem.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Note Peter T King is a GOP congressman, tgis opposition is across both parties not just the Democrats

    Peter King is a long-time supporter of the IRA and an all-round scumbag.

    Whatever he is, he has a vote in Congress.

    Not for much longer. He is standing down in November.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 4,245
    Is Frost saying we don't need customs checks because we currently follow EU rules? So we can't change anything? And who enforces these rules once we have left the EU. Ourselves? Why would they trust us to do that? Looks like plenty of holes here.
  • Hurrah.

    Barbados is taking back control from their unelected rulers.

  • eekeek Posts: 9,241
    edited September 16

    eek said:

    That "its an election year" doesn't change the basic political realities. The Americans will not reward us for shitting on the Good Friday Agreement.

    I know that the supremacy of Britain England seems to be an article of faith amongst some. They're about to have a quick education in realpolitik

    So what do you think will happen if we refuse to back down? The EU and USA will be sour with us forever? Without actually dealing with the problems?

    Or will they seek to adapt to the new reality? Realpolitik involves dealing with the world as it is not as you want it to be. Realpolitik means if Britain England wants something doing we need to do it ourselves and not expect anyone else to do it for us.
    Every year in the US is an election year (except probably the first year in the 4 year presidential election cycle). So we would need a deal done next year and that requires it going through congress and Congress have already said that with the new NI that's not happening.

    And politicians want to be elected - so they aren't going to vote for something that loses them Irish votes (and there are a lot of Irish votes in the US, including millions who haven't ever been to Ireland).
    Congress have said with things as they stand they won't. Things won't be like this for evermore.

    If we refuse to play ball and if the EU and USA can't make us back down then the only viable solution left is for the EU and UK to agree alternative solutions, which is what should have been done all along and is what the EU and Ireland were planning until May lost her majority and the EU decided to weaponise the border and play fast and loose with the Good Friday Agreement.

    Once alternative solutions are agreed there would be no reason for Congress to object on these grounds.
    If we refuse to play ball the EU doesn't have to do anything - it's quite probably in their interests to apply the WTO rules the way they need to be applied and watch Boris squirm as the consequences play out. Heck it's what I would do given the circumstances...

    In the same that parents at times need to leave the toddler to their screaming fit as nothing is going to fix it.
  • DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    Would the US Congress be happy if the UK government failed in its duty to provide food? I seem to recall an echo in Irish history about that sort of failing.

    The government's position on this has been chaotic and stupid. Grown ups have now made it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not breach the agreement at all. They give us the capacity to act if the EU breaches the agreement and sought to hold us to ransom by its provisions. The government has made it clear that the provisions of the bill will not be used pre-emptively. Why the legislation was not presented in this way in the first instance so as to avoid this completely ridiculous row is simply beyond me. Presumably some idiot thought he was being clever. He really wasn't and this letter is just one example of that.

    The EU hasn't threatened to blockade UK food nor does it shows any intention of doing so. That's a slander invented by a morally and intellectually bankrupt government to shore up its position. Even if the EU did decide for this Act of War, the proposed bill does zero to address the problem.
    It is clear Barnier has and he stepped over the mark but Boris reaction was equalled wrong

    In what way is it clear? Seriously. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it, but it could be because I am not looking in the right places. I do not understand how the EU could blockade Northern Ireland, for starters. And if the legislaiotn is all about preventing a blockade, why is state aid a big part of it?

    Barnier started this.




    He's used to playing tough man and expecting the UK to roll over and play dead. Instead the UK is standing up for itself. Good.
    This is exactly what I have been saying without even reading his tweets. This is important and needs movement on the part of the EU. Now.
    The situation on 1/1/21 may be perfectly clear to Frost, but that date is the day after the end of transition, so all rules have to be renewed. For god sake just fill out the form! We can't assume everything will just roll on down the road. By then it will be their markets, their rules. If we leave the club we can't assume automatic access. Dare I mention the Schroedinger Cake?

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 6,817
    IshmaelZ said:

    tlg86 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re: tests. One woman said that when she put unemployed on her application form, she wasn't given a test, so she put key worker and was given one.

    And the media are indulging people like her. Instead of asking the government what are they doing to stop people like her making it harder for those with a genuine need, they asking the government why everyone can't get a test whenever they feel like getting one.
    Perhaps the rule of six breach snoopers could be encouraged to snoop on test scroungers in their spare time? Wanting to know whether or not you have a lethal, contagious disease seems to me a pretty laudable aspiration. I think a poster upthread suggested satirically that people were getting tested purely for shits n giggles, and was taken literally.
    Do people really queue for hours for a ‘laugh’ or have a cotton wool swab stuck up their nose for a giggle? Is it fun to spend hours on the internet trying to book an appointment?
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 946


    I had multiple tests last week simply because my doctors don’t trust the test. Not sure why.

    IIUC a PCR test will often return negative just because there isn't a lot of virus to detect yet but it's still growing, so if you're infected you may test negative a couple of times before you finally test positive.
    Professor Carl Heneghan reckons that the PCR test is capable of detecting viral particles from people who had covid up to 13 weeks ago.
Sign In or Register to comment.