I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Yes that is exactly what France has. If it wants to do something the EU cannot stop it. Just as it could not stop the UK.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
Reconcile that with the ability of an outside body to pass laws applicable to the internal functioning of a state without the state being able to stop them.
It is easy. France can pass whatever laws it wants. It cannot pass whatever laws it wants and remain a member of the EU unless it convinces the other countries to let them. Whereas the EU cannot impose laws on France that France does not want to accept, all France has to do is leave and the laws are irrelevant.
No it’s not. It’s the most completely wrong brain dead stupid clueless thing they could do with it. Martin Luther King and Kapernik took the knee for the completely opposite reason they just used it.
King asked, am I not your brother too?
They merely grinned, the worlds out to screw me so screw you.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Yes that is exactly what France has. If it wants to do something the EU cannot stop it. Just as it could not stop the UK.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
Reconcile that with the ability of an outside body to pass laws applicable to the internal functioning of a state without the state being able to stop them.
It is easy. France can pass whatever laws it wants. It cannot pass whatever laws it wants and remain a member of the EU unless it convinces the other countries to let them. Whereas the EU cannot impose laws on France that France does not want to accept, all France has to do is leave and the laws are irrelevant.
So as long as it is a member it is not sovereign. I knew you would get there in the end.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Yes that is exactly what France has. If it wants to do something the EU cannot stop it. Just as it could not stop the UK.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
Reconcile that with the ability of an outside body to pass laws applicable to the internal functioning of a state without the state being able to stop them.
It is easy. France can pass whatever laws it wants. It cannot pass whatever laws it wants and remain a member of the EU unless it convinces the other countries to let them. Whereas the EU cannot impose laws on France that France does not want to accept, all France has to do is leave and the laws are irrelevant.
So as long as it is a member it is not sovereign. I knew you would get there in the end.
Eh? Reading and rationality is obviously not your strong point this evening. I am out.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Yes that is exactly what France has. If it wants to do something the EU cannot stop it. Just as it could not stop the UK.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
Reconcile that with the ability of an outside body to pass laws applicable to the internal functioning of a state without the state being able to stop them.
It is easy. France can pass whatever laws it wants. It cannot pass whatever laws it wants and remain a member of the EU unless it convinces the other countries to let them. Whereas the EU cannot impose laws on France that France does not want to accept, all France has to do is leave and the laws are irrelevant.
So as long as it is a member it is not sovereign. I knew you would get there in the end.
So long as France gets to choose whether or not it remains a member of EU then it is entirely sovereign, just as we were when we were members & are now we have left.
Sovereignty is having the power to do the things you choose within your own borders without other countries being able to stop you. It doesn’t require you to actually /do/ those things.
Of course, the power to carry out an act does not mean that a country is free from the consequences. But if they have the power to carry it through if they choose, then they remain just as sovereign whether they carry out the act or not.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
I used to be for 4 years. Approaching a decade since I escaped back north.
I escaped the north; used to live in Darlington (shudders) among other places.
I moved to London two decades ago and have never had a single inkling to return northward.
Comments
King asked, am I not your brother too?
They merely grinned, the worlds out to screw me so screw you.
Sovereignty is having the power to do the things you choose within your own borders without other countries being able to stop you. It doesn’t require you to actually /do/ those things.
Of course, the power to carry out an act does not mean that a country is free from the consequences. But if they have the power to carry it through if they choose, then they remain just as sovereign whether they carry out the act or not.