Numbers are such that theatre recovery is being converted to overflow Covid ICU again. Not only are the hospital numbers up, but this significantly impacts on surgical turnover for other conditions.
So not my usual chirpy self...
Back into T3 for you...
Leicester has been in Tier 2 or worse since 23rd March. We have never been out.
So Britain ceasing to exist is less important to Phillip than Britain leaving the EU. What a pathetic state of affairs.
Reminds me of my Zx Spectrum playing Monopoly. The AI would do anything to complete a set, including giving me the properties in the set.
Utterly self defeating.
Why is it pathetic to have different priorities to you? I'm honest about mine. I support Scottish independence and Irish unity (I'm not concerned about the Welsh) but if they want to remain with us I'm OK with that too, but the idea that "we should set our own laws" is more paramount to me than who "we" is since I do not believe the union should be a prison caging those who don't want to remain.
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
A slackening of polls in the past couple of days from across the Pond.
Trafalgar put Biden up 48-46 in Wisconsin but there's been enough talked about that organisation. In Colorad0, which Clinton won by 5 in 2016, a new poll by YouGov for the University of Colorado has Biden up 47-38 but with a large number of Undecided voters:
30% Undecided among Independents which seems very high and out of kilter with many other recent polls. Perhaps Denver suffers more from indecision brought on by altitude - I'm not convinced.
The daily IBN/TIPP poll has Biden up 6 in a four-way contest which would tally with the Colorado number of a gentle 2% swing away from Trump - not huge but enough to carry some key states.
How many people in Scotland would vote for Brexit but then decide that being in the UK is better than an independent Scotland.
Then take that miniscule number and deduct those who don't think Boris is a twat...
The Union is screwed.
There are Scottish Unionists who voted Leave. I suppose they imagined the two things are somehow separate. They also must be in denial that Brexit was an expression of English nationalism. While many Scots don't buy into Scottish nationalism, at least it's ours. English nationalism?
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
But you don't believe parliament should be sovereign. You believe the people should.
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Not this dribble again. We know Parliament was already sovereign. The argument is done, stop making yourself look like a pillock.
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
So are tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, hepatitis, measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. Due to the vaccines (and TB especially isn’t an all-powerful perfectly effective one), although they’re endemic, they’re very rarely much of a concern for us day-to-day.
Endemic means always present and circulating. Of that lot measles and mumps are borderline endemic because of mmr silliness. The rest aren't. TB vaccine effectiveness is irrelevant because we decided in 2005, precisely because TB is not endemic, that we could not be arsed to give it any more.
So Britain ceasing to exist is less important to Phillip than Britain leaving the EU. What a pathetic state of affairs.
Reminds me of my Zx Spectrum playing Monopoly. The AI would do anything to complete a set, including giving me the properties in the set.
Utterly self defeating.
After six months of mostly idiotic decision making from our government and parliament, outdone by every alternative source of decision making at home and abroad, the sooner Westminster loses some powers, the better.
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
Example tweet of his: "The old normal is back in Sweden - because they followed the science. While you stupid, stupid morons go around with underpants on your faces and scared of your own shadows.... "
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
But you don't believe parliament should be sovereign. You believe the people should.
Yes I do believe the people should be sovereign and I believe the people should exercise their sovereignty via electing Members of Parliament and entrusting them to exercise that subject to subsequent elections where anything they pass can be reversed.
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
But you are in favour of the Internal Markets bill which will give the Government the unilateral power to change the law without further reference to either Parliament or the Courts.
This is getting frankly ridiculous. You can't just keep discussing this for weeks, if you are wanting to put somebody into T3, you need to have a meeting, listen to their point of view, then make a decision. Its shit or get off the pot.
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
He couldn't impose it because his MPs weren't having it, and the Mayor's are in charge of implementing it (including instructing the police as police commissioners).
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
But you are in favour of the Internal Markets bill which will give the Government the unilateral power to change the law without further reference to either Parliament or the Courts.
Only subject to the limitations of the Bill that Parliament approves.
And if the public are unhappy with the Internal Markets Bill and a future government wants to reverse it then they can do so, that is the point as Parliament is fully sovereign post-Brexit it can unilaterally change reverse any law we dislike. If at the next election Labour wants to abolish the Internal Markets Bill they can put that in their manifeso. That can be done unilaterally because Parliament is sovereign.
If a future government wanted to reverse the Lisbon Treaty then how (as EU members and without Brexiting) could the UK unilaterally do that?
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
No, the European Council need to change Barnier's mandate. Until they do that there is no point in continuing talks.
Honestly Philip at this stage I'm not going to engage with you on the issue of Brexit, it's just a complete waste of my time - I say that with the greatest of respect
No, the European Council need to change Barnier's mandate. Until they do that there is no point in continuing talks.
Honestly Philip at this stage I'm not going to engage with you on the issue of Brexit, it's just a complete waste of my time - I say that with the greatest of respect
That's fine if you're not prepared to listen to other people's Point of View then that is your prerogative.
You'd fit in well with the European Council who mandated Barnier not to make any compromises and then are shocked the talks are at an end.
The Hunter Biden lap top story suffers from one big flaw . If there was anything on there incriminating it would have been acted on already by the FBI.
And if you’re going to drop a story you’d tend to want to do that before nearly 30 million have already voted !
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
The americans cleverly overcome that latter handicap by ferrying the virus about by air.
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
He couldn't impose it because his MPs weren't having it, and the Mayor's are in charge of implementing it (including instructing the police as police commissioners).
No, the European Council need to change Barnier's mandate. Until they do that there is no point in continuing talks.
Honestly Philip at this stage I'm not going to engage with you on the issue of Brexit, it's just a complete waste of my time - I say that with the greatest of respect
That's fine if you're not prepared to listen to other people's Point of View then that is your prerogative.
You'd fit in well with the European Council who mandated Barnier not to make any compromises and then are shocked the talks are at an end.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
But you are in favour of the Internal Markets bill which will give the Government the unilateral power to change the law without further reference to either Parliament or the Courts.
Only subject to the limitations of the Bill that Parliament approves.
And if the public are unhappy with the Internal Markets Bill and a future government wants to reverse it then they can do so, that is the point as Parliament is fully sovereign post-Brexit it can unilaterally change reverse any law we dislike. If at the next election Labour wants to abolish the Internal Markets Bill they can put that in their manifeso. That can be done unilaterally because Parliament is sovereign.
If a future government wanted to reverse the Lisbon Treaty then how (as EU members and without Brexiting) could the UK unilaterally do that?
What rubbish. Once you've given the Government the power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts), what Government is ever going to give that power back? Parliament can whistle in the dark for all that they can do about it.
Numbers are such that theatre recovery is being converted to overflow Covid ICU again. Not only are the hospital numbers up, but this significantly impacts on surgical turnover for other conditions.
So not my usual chirpy self...
Back into T3 for you...
Leicester has been in Tier 2 or worse since 23rd March. We have never been out.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
But you are in favour of the Internal Markets bill which will give the Government the unilateral power to change the law without further reference to either Parliament or the Courts.
Only subject to the limitations of the Bill that Parliament approves.
And if the public are unhappy with the Internal Markets Bill and a future government wants to reverse it then they can do so, that is the point as Parliament is fully sovereign post-Brexit it can unilaterally change reverse any law we dislike. If at the next election Labour wants to abolish the Internal Markets Bill they can put that in their manifeso. That can be done unilaterally because Parliament is sovereign.
If a future government wanted to reverse the Lisbon Treaty then how (as EU members and without Brexiting) could the UK unilaterally do that?
What rubbish. Once you've given the Government the power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts), what Government is ever going to give that power back? Parliament can whistle in the dark for all that they can do about it.
Parliament can pass whatever laws Parliament wants to pass.
The Government doesn't have blanket power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts).
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
But then you might as well say, "look, there is no prospect of deal, let the chips fall where they may". It's the infantile nonsense that sucks everyone's energy. Also what's the point of "Australia Terms"? Just say, "no deal - we can cope with it".
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
Numbers are such that theatre recovery is being converted to overflow Covid ICU again. Not only are the hospital numbers up, but this significantly impacts on surgical turnover for other conditions.
So not my usual chirpy self...
Back into T3 for you...
Leicester has been in Tier 2 or worse since 23rd March. We have never been out.
I know, hence why I said BACK into T3.
If lockdowns work how to explain Leicester?
People just ignoring the rules?
Its a funny sort of lockdown where pubs, restaurants, schools and universities are open. Indeed not a lockdown in any meaningful way at all.
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
He couldn't impose it because his MPs weren't having it, and the Mayor's are in charge of implementing it (including instructing the police as police commissioners).
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
He couldn't impose it because his MPs weren't having it, and the Mayor's are in charge of implementing it (including instructing the police as police commissioners).
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
But you are in favour of the Internal Markets bill which will give the Government the unilateral power to change the law without further reference to either Parliament or the Courts.
Only subject to the limitations of the Bill that Parliament approves.
And if the public are unhappy with the Internal Markets Bill and a future government wants to reverse it then they can do so, that is the point as Parliament is fully sovereign post-Brexit it can unilaterally change reverse any law we dislike. If at the next election Labour wants to abolish the Internal Markets Bill they can put that in their manifeso. That can be done unilaterally because Parliament is sovereign.
If a future government wanted to reverse the Lisbon Treaty then how (as EU members and without Brexiting) could the UK unilaterally do that?
What rubbish. Once you've given the Government the power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts), what Government is ever going to give that power back? Parliament can whistle in the dark for all that they can do about it.
Parliament can pass whatever laws Parliament wants to pass.
The Government doesn't have blanket power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts).
1) it does under the Internal Market bill 2) the Executive controls the Parliamentary timetable. Parliament has little power to make law against the will of the Executive.
Watching Fox desperately trying to spin the Hunter Biden storm-in-a-teacup into something damaging is a joy to behold.
Someone posted a link to a Twitter feed that suggested the Hunter Biden scandal was now been brought up by voters.
Be careful. That was the line about Cunningham-Tillis in NC and the immediate polls saying Cunningham's lead was the same or heightened. Everyone said the scandal hadn't resonated. And now Cunningham's lead has suddenly shrunk.
These things take time to work through.
Straw grasping methinks, Even if there is anything in it it's primarily about Biden's son not Joe himself and most anti-Trumpers will just assume it's more lies from the mouth of Trump or the usual GOP dirty tricks. When you lie on a daily basis you tend not to have much credibility outside the core. Trump could announce a successful vaccine next week but very few would believe him.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.
If you believe Parliament should be sovereign then that is quite reasonably more important than whether all elements of the union wish to remain within the UK. Elements of the union have left in the past, its not that big of a deal.
Give me a break, you supported the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
At the time it had never been judged illegal. 🤷🏻♂️
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
But you are in favour of the Internal Markets bill which will give the Government the unilateral power to change the law without further reference to either Parliament or the Courts.
Only subject to the limitations of the Bill that Parliament approves.
And if the public are unhappy with the Internal Markets Bill and a future government wants to reverse it then they can do so, that is the point as Parliament is fully sovereign post-Brexit it can unilaterally change reverse any law we dislike. If at the next election Labour wants to abolish the Internal Markets Bill they can put that in their manifeso. That can be done unilaterally because Parliament is sovereign.
If a future government wanted to reverse the Lisbon Treaty then how (as EU members and without Brexiting) could the UK unilaterally do that?
What rubbish. Once you've given the Government the power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts), what Government is ever going to give that power back? Parliament can whistle in the dark for all that they can do about it.
Parliament can pass whatever laws Parliament wants to pass.
The Government doesn't have blanket power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts).
1) it does under the Internal Market bill 2) the Executive controls the Parliamentary timetable. Parliament has little power to make law against the will of the Executive.
1) It does not. The limitations of the Internal Market Bill are very narrow. 2) Parliament can if it really wants to - and Parliament can No Confidence the Executive any time it wants to if it is really bothered.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.
Do you understand the difference between the European Council and Merkel?
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.
Well Theresa May does have experience in being destroyed and having a reputation beyond repair.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.
I noticed that Gove was calling her "the honourable lady" rather than "my honourable friend". That's about as unparliamentary as you can get for somebody in your own party.
Parliament can pass whatever laws Parliament wants to pass.
The Government doesn't have blanket power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts).
I'm not sure the first line is true. There are enough lawyers around and in Parliament to assess whether a piece of legislation is going to pass legal scrutiny. The "system" works on a delicate and nuanced balance between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.
Where I part company with the current Government is the notion that Parliament should abdicate powers to Ministers without appropriate scrutiny being put in place. Yes, there may be emergency occasions where Ministers need to make quick decisions but that doesn't mean those Ministers shouldn't then come to Parliament at the earliest opportunity to explain and face questioning about those decisions.
That's how it has to work - Government governs but not without scrutiny and accountability. Parliament can pass any legislation but that too is subject to scrutiny and accountability both within Parliament (via the Lords and Select Committees) and outside Parliament (where any new legislation conflicts with pre-existing international law or treaties of which the UK is part).
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.
Do you understand the difference between the European Council and Merkel?
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
I know the difference. It was you who heard her comments and concluded that the EU were folding.
But regardless - that ignores the point that the UK's best case deal, the famed "Canada deal", is not much better in material terms to no deal. Maybe a bit better in the medium term, but it will still mean chaos on Jan 1st. Because we aren't remotely prepared for either scenario. So really even if the EU did "fold" and give us what we are asking for, it still wouldn't amount to much.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.
Do you understand the difference between the European Council and Merkel?
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
I know the difference. It was you who heard her comments and concluded that the EU were folding.
But regardless - that ignores the point that the UK's best case deal, the famed "Canada deal", is not much better in material terms to no deal. So really even if the EU did "fold" and give us what we are asking for, it still wouldn't amount to much.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
But then you might as well say, "look, there is no prospect of deal, let the chips fall where they may". It's the infantile nonsense that sucks everyone's energy. Also what's the point of "Australia Terms"? Just say, "no deal - we can cope with it".
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
It’s not even Australia terms anyway - utterly cynical and dishonest though the use of that term by leavers is: Australia already has trading agreements with all of its closest and largest trading partners, has about twenty individual agreements with the EU ten of which deal with trade, and is exceedingly keen to replace its existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU.
In all of these increasing demands for more and more money and no job loses to be considered, I have a quiet admiration for Rishi as he stands firm with the public purse, even against public opinion
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.
He couldn't impose it because his MPs weren't having it, and the Mayor's are in charge of implementing it (including instructing the police as police commissioners).
Point of order. Our Mayor is NOT the PCC.
Which Mayor? Andy Burnham is.
“North of Tyne” mayor.
Yes, as we've got a dog's breakfast where the mayoral areas in the NE don't match the police force areas. Three forces, two mayors and a first class county in the middle.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.
Well Theresa May does have experience in being destroyed and having a reputation beyond repair.
There's a line somewhere in the Yes Minister books which goes something like this:
It must have hurt Sir Humphrey to be described as weak and unprincipled. To be described this way by someone as weak and unprincipled as Hacker must have hurt even more. What must have hurt most was the knowledge that Hacker's description was true.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
But then you might as well say, "look, there is no prospect of deal, let the chips fall where they may". It's the infantile nonsense that sucks everyone's energy. Also what's the point of "Australia Terms"? Just say, "no deal - we can cope with it".
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
It’s not even Australia terms anyway - utterly cynical and dishonest though the use of that term by leavers is: Australia already has trading agreements with all of its closest and largest trading partners, has about twenty individual agreements with the EU ten of which deal with trade, and is exceedingly keen to replace its existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU.
It is Australia terms. We have an agreement with the EU too for certain issues, the Withdrawal Agreement and it doesn't fully expire 31/12/20.
Furthermore we too, like Australia, would remain keen to replace our soon to be existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU as soon as they're prepared to meet our demands. Just like Australia.
No we can't put it back in the bat. But hopefully medical advances inc vaccines will tame it sufficiently for life without Covid restrictions to resume by the end of next year at worst?
I can't imagine western society will even manage another 14 months of restrictions.
I'm struggling with this comment.
Take Arizona.
They've largely lifted all CV19 restrictions. (Yay!)
But - in the big cities at least - life looks very much like it does in the UK. Bars and restaurants are table seating only. Shopping centres require patrons to wear masks. Businesses are all, where they can, letting staff work from home.
When people get to choose, they are choosing something that looks almost exactly like government mandated lockdown.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
But then you might as well say, "look, there is no prospect of deal, let the chips fall where they may". It's the infantile nonsense that sucks everyone's energy. Also what's the point of "Australia Terms"? Just say, "no deal - we can cope with it".
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
It’s not even Australia terms anyway - utterly cynical and dishonest though the use of that term by leavers is: Australia already has trading agreements with all of its closest and largest trading partners, has about twenty individual agreements with the EU ten of which deal with trade, and is exceedingly keen to replace its existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU.
It is Australia terms. We have an agreement with the EU too for certain issues, the Withdrawal Agreement and it doesn't fully expire 31/12/20.
Furthermore we too, like Australia, would remain keen to replace our soon to be existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU as soon as they're prepared to meet our demands. Just like Australia.
Lol, which particular features of the Withdrawal agreement (which incidentally doesn't "expire" at all, not "fully expire") are you holding on to as beneficial to the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU? Northern Ireland gets something out of it, and that's about it. Although we've even put that in grave jeopardy.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
But then you might as well say, "look, there is no prospect of deal, let the chips fall where they may". It's the infantile nonsense that sucks everyone's energy. Also what's the point of "Australia Terms"? Just say, "no deal - we can cope with it".
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
It’s not even Australia terms anyway - utterly cynical and dishonest though the use of that term by leavers is: Australia already has trading agreements with all of its closest and largest trading partners, has about twenty individual agreements with the EU ten of which deal with trade, and is exceedingly keen to replace its existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU.
This is surely a case where the dishonesty is counterproductive. If you want to make the case that we don't need the EU, you would want to be seen to be steadfast , to be brave, to be clear. Pretending people aren't going to notice, just makes them look even shiftier than they are already.
Parliament can pass whatever laws Parliament wants to pass.
The Government doesn't have blanket power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts).
I'm not sure the first line is true. There are enough lawyers around and in Parliament to assess whether a piece of legislation is going to pass legal scrutiny. The "system" works on a delicate and nuanced balance between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.
Where I part company with the current Government is the notion that Parliament should abdicate powers to Ministers without appropriate scrutiny being put in place. Yes, there may be emergency occasions where Ministers need to make quick decisions but that doesn't mean those Ministers shouldn't then come to Parliament at the earliest opportunity to explain and face questioning about those decisions.
That's how it has to work - Government governs but not without scrutiny and accountability. Parliament can pass any legislation but that too is subject to scrutiny and accountability both within Parliament (via the Lords and Select Committees) and outside Parliament (where any new legislation conflicts with pre-existing international law or treaties of which the UK is part).
Boris Johnson is quite the centraliser of power, which is really at odds with his self-professed liberal tendencies. Anybody with half a brain (which Boris Johnson definitely has) knows that power accumulated often ends up in the wrong hands. If you concentrate power then you are culpable for anything that is done later by whoever succeeds to that power.
I fully believe that Boris Johnson knows this lesson from history, but he is still making the same mistake. It makes me think he is wholly unserious about the consequences of his actions. I don't give much credence to political caricatures, and I don't have much time for those who try to encapsulate any politician in such a potted one-liner. However, when people describe Boris Johnson as a shallow chancer, I cannot find anything to counter it. What's worse, I cannot find anything to add to it.
"I see we're still talking about Scottish Independence. Did PM Miliband get re-elected and who is this Tier 3 band who seem to be coming to all the big cities?"
I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.
Do you understand the difference between the European Council and Merkel?
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
I know the difference. It was you who heard her comments and concluded that the EU were folding.
But regardless - that ignores the point that the UK's best case deal, the famed "Canada deal", is not much better in material terms to no deal. Maybe a bit better in the medium term, but it will still mean chaos on Jan 1st. Because we aren't remotely prepared for either scenario. So really even if the EU did "fold" and give us what we are asking for, it still wouldn't amount to much.
And that is the final crowning glory.
Putting aside the question of what was suggested in 2016, 2017 and 2019, suppose the mega brains in this government had really thought that a relationship without a single market or customs arrangement was the desired landing point. From that moment onwards, it's really obvious that movements across the border are going to be accompanied by lots of red tape. Either literal people sitting in booths checking forms filled in by other people, or the electronic equivalent.
We'll put the question of what small government / libertarian types are doing creating all this red tape to another side. If that's what you, as a government, want, it's your duty to ensure that the systems are in place and working in time. The booths, the people to sit in the booths, the forms. Or the computer systems. Or probably both. You have a responsibility to help businesses navigate the new systems in bulk- because a lot more international trade is going to need forms than has for the last 30 years. And it's not.
Why not? Can't blame the EU; this stuff would have been needed had the EU given the UK exactly what it wanted. Was the aim to not scare the horses by revealing how rubbish things are going to be for real businesses in 2021? Did the government not understand the consequences of their own policy? Was it that the mega brains in this government have worse project management skills than a bunch of toddlers at a soft play centre? Something else?
But SAGE have said this is a non-starter, as you can't keep enough of the vulnerable from interacting with the rest of the population.
I notice in Vallance's reported comments today about the virus "not going away" he says that SAGE's "advice" should not be treated as "THE advice" to be followed blindly, and does need to be weighed up against economic and other consequences.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.
Shouldn't she be thanking him?
His first knifing of Boris led to her becoming PM.
How many people in Scotland would vote for Brexit but then decide that being in the UK is better than an independent Scotland.
Then take that miniscule number and deduct those who don't think Boris is a twat...
The Union is screwed.
56% of Scots would vote to stay in the UK and only 44% to leave once they are reminded that after the UK leaves the single market and customs union leaving the UK to rejoin the EU likely means a hard border with England and also the loss of sterling
Am watching the Million Pound Cube for the first and last time. A series of games that would not have kept my kindergarten class entertained for more than a few minutes.
So Britain ceasing to exist is less important to Phillip than Britain leaving the EU. What a pathetic state of affairs.
Reminds me of my Zx Spectrum playing Monopoly. The AI would do anything to complete a set, including giving me the properties in the set.
Utterly self defeating.
After six months of mostly idiotic decision making from our government and parliament, outdone by every alternative source of decision making at home and abroad, the sooner Westminster loses some powers, the better.
Do you really believe that drivel? Most countires are struggling with Covid in identical ways to the UK - all the same issues and tensions are playing out - some are doing better and some are doing worse. Try reading the news in some other countries - everything happening in the UK - good and bad - is pretty much happening everywhere.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.
Shouldn't she be thanking him?
His first knifing of Boris led to her becoming PM.
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.
Do you understand the difference between the European Council and Merkel?
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
I know the difference. It was you who heard her comments and concluded that the EU were folding.
But regardless - that ignores the point that the UK's best case deal, the famed "Canada deal", is not much better in material terms to no deal. Maybe a bit better in the medium term, but it will still mean chaos on Jan 1st. Because we aren't remotely prepared for either scenario. So really even if the EU did "fold" and give us what we are asking for, it still wouldn't amount to much.
If a deal is done the sensible thing to do would be to include a 6-month phasing in period - so effectively The Transition ends but there is a "transition" to the new steady state. This would allow everyone to prepare and get ready for a known entity whilst Covid-19 and the vaccine is dealt with.
It would also marry up with what I'm hearing about July 2021 deadlines for some of the HMRC programmes my firm currently has people seconded in and working on.
There is an exemption for chauffeur-driven cars, but Downing Street said it had advised all its ministers to wear coverings.
A No 10 spokesman said there were masks available in all ministerial cars.
The picture was first published on the Daily Mirror website.
It shows the health secretary arriving at the Department for Health and Social Care on Monday without a mask.
Asked later whether the minister would be reprimanded for going against the advice, the prime minister's official spokesman said he had not seen the photo.
Comments
PS there's only one L in my name.
Whether its "his people" doing so is another matter.
A slackening of polls in the past couple of days from across the Pond.
Trafalgar put Biden up 48-46 in Wisconsin but there's been enough talked about that organisation. In Colorad0, which Clinton won by 5 in 2016, a new poll by YouGov for the University of Colorado has Biden up 47-38 but with a large number of Undecided voters:
https://www.colorado.edu/lab/aprl/sites/default/files/attached-files/2020_colorado_political_climate_report_election_topline_10-19-20_.pdf
30% Undecided among Independents which seems very high and out of kilter with many other recent polls. Perhaps Denver suffers more from indecision brought on by altitude - I'm not convinced.
The daily IBN/TIPP poll has Biden up 6 in a four-way contest which would tally with the Colorado number of a gentle 2% swing away from Trump - not huge but enough to carry some key states.
Plenty of time still to go however.
Prorogations happen and it was for a short period of time. The Government had no ability to change the law while Parliament was prorogued the law would remain whatever Parliament set it as - no more, no less.
Is that so alien a concept?
It hit and then dissipated.
It is long past time we had decisions based on actual evidence on the ground and not ministerial whims.
So he really is engineering No Deal
And if the public are unhappy with the Internal Markets Bill and a future government wants to reverse it then they can do so, that is the point as Parliament is fully sovereign post-Brexit it can unilaterally change reverse any law we dislike. If at the next election Labour wants to abolish the Internal Markets Bill they can put that in their manifeso. That can be done unilaterally because Parliament is sovereign.
If a future government wanted to reverse the Lisbon Treaty then how (as EU members and without Brexiting) could the UK unilaterally do that?
Boris will very happily sacrifice Sunak once his star has faded. Clear lay for next PM I reckon.
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1317754805612400640?s=20
You'd fit in well with the European Council who mandated Barnier not to make any compromises and then are shocked the talks are at an end.
And if you’re going to drop a story you’d tend to want to do that before nearly 30 million have already voted !
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
People just ignoring the rules?
The Government doesn't have blanket power to make law without reference to Parliament (or the courts).
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
2) the Executive controls the Parliamentary timetable. Parliament has little power to make law against the will of the Executive.
2) Parliament can if it really wants to - and Parliament can No Confidence the Executive any time it wants to if it is really bothered.
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1318286918589743106
Where I part company with the current Government is the notion that Parliament should abdicate powers to Ministers without appropriate scrutiny being put in place. Yes, there may be emergency occasions where Ministers need to make quick decisions but that doesn't mean those Ministers shouldn't then come to Parliament at the earliest opportunity to explain and face questioning about those decisions.
That's how it has to work - Government governs but not without scrutiny and accountability. Parliament can pass any legislation but that too is subject to scrutiny and accountability both within Parliament (via the Lords and Select Committees) and outside Parliament (where any new legislation conflicts with pre-existing international law or treaties of which the UK is part).
But regardless - that ignores the point that the UK's best case deal, the famed "Canada deal", is not much better in material terms to no deal. Maybe a bit better in the medium term, but it will still mean chaos on Jan 1st. Because we aren't remotely prepared for either scenario. So really even if the EU did "fold" and give us what we are asking for, it still wouldn't amount to much.
We're trying to get away from the extras.
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
It must have hurt Sir Humphrey to be described as weak and unprincipled. To be described this way by someone as weak and unprincipled as Hacker must have hurt even more. What must have hurt most was the knowledge that Hacker's description was true.
Furthermore we too, like Australia, would remain keen to replace our soon to be existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU as soon as they're prepared to meet our demands. Just like Australia.
Take Arizona.
They've largely lifted all CV19 restrictions. (Yay!)
But - in the big cities at least - life looks very much like it does in the UK. Bars and restaurants are table seating only. Shopping centres require patrons to wear masks. Businesses are all, where they can, letting staff work from home.
When people get to choose, they are choosing something that looks almost exactly like government mandated lockdown.
Of course, Fox is now happy to spread the story now that teh NY Post has done the dirty work of breaking it
Anybody with half a brain (which Boris Johnson definitely has) knows that power accumulated often ends up in the wrong hands. If you concentrate power then you are culpable for anything that is done later by whoever succeeds to that power.
I fully believe that Boris Johnson knows this lesson from history, but he is still making the same mistake. It makes me think he is wholly unserious about the consequences of his actions. I don't give much credence to political caricatures, and I don't have much time for those who try to encapsulate any politician in such a potted one-liner. However, when people describe Boris Johnson as a shallow chancer, I cannot find anything to counter it. What's worse, I cannot find anything to add to it.
But SAGE have said this is a non-starter, as you can't keep enough of the vulnerable from interacting with the rest of the population.
"I see we're still talking about Scottish Independence. Did PM Miliband get re-elected and who is this Tier 3 band who seem to be coming to all the big cities?"
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
Putting aside the question of what was suggested in 2016, 2017 and 2019, suppose the mega brains in this government had really thought that a relationship without a single market or customs arrangement was the desired landing point. From that moment onwards, it's really obvious that movements across the border are going to be accompanied by lots of red tape. Either literal people sitting in booths checking forms filled in by other people, or the electronic equivalent.
We'll put the question of what small government / libertarian types are doing creating all this red tape to another side. If that's what you, as a government, want, it's your duty to ensure that the systems are in place and working in time. The booths, the people to sit in the booths, the forms. Or the computer systems. Or probably both. You have a responsibility to help businesses navigate the new systems in bulk- because a lot more international trade is going to need forms than has for the last 30 years. And it's not.
Why not? Can't blame the EU; this stuff would have been needed had the EU given the UK exactly what it wanted. Was the aim to not scare the horses by revealing how rubbish things are going to be for real businesses in 2021? Did the government not understand the consequences of their own policy? Was it that the mega brains in this government have worse project management skills than a bunch of toddlers at a soft play centre? Something else?
His first knifing of Boris led to her becoming PM.
Otherwise she'd have been a Hunt-like also ran.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-most-scots-would-reject-independence-after-considering-issues-2976093
A series of games that would not have kept my kindergarten class entertained for more than a few minutes.
https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1318279804135874563
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318268996907663369?s=20
It would also marry up with what I'm hearing about July 2021 deadlines for some of the HMRC programmes my firm currently has people seconded in and working on.
A No 10 spokesman said there were masks available in all ministerial cars.
The picture was first published on the Daily Mirror website.
It shows the health secretary arriving at the Department for Health and Social Care on Monday without a mask.
Asked later whether the minister would be reprimanded for going against the advice, the prime minister's official spokesman said he had not seen the photo.