@Philip_Thompson please enlighten us on the areas where the EU have "blinked". What has changed?
The EU had been wanting the main UK/EU deal agreed before this agreement was reached. They weaponised the threat of not agreeing this thus causing GB/NI disruption if we didn't sign a UK/EU deal - which is what provoked the Government into bringing in the IM Bill.
Now this Protocol has been honoured in good faith with or without another deal as it always should have been, thus rendering the IM Bill unnecessary. It was only necessary due to the EU's stonewalling, the NI Protocol had envisioned this happening already in good faith and now it has.
You're so deluded it's hilarious. Christ.
Yet its turning out like I forecast when the IM Bill was released.
Others here were losing their minds about how this would mean the EU couldn't trust the UK - I said that this was balancing the scales making a respectful deal on NI more likely. Now one has been reached, like I said.
So who was delusional exactly?
You are delusional. Literally everything you write on this topic.
It's just complete and utter nonsense from start to finish.
Yet I was right. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
No you weren't.
We got an NI Protocol deal. Just been agreed in principle. I was right.
You can't just say you were "right" about something without ever claiming it in the first place.
I'm sorry but this is verging on the ridiculous.
I will not further engage with you on this topic because I'm starting to suspect that you're nothing more than a troll.
But I did claim it. I said that it would make a deal on the NI Protocol more likely.
A deal has just been made.
QED. What are you disputing?
Ice creams cause more bee stings. That is beyond dispute.
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.
Wills and Catherine should resign from the line of succession, they are worse than Dominic Cummings and that SNP lady.
Lock them up.
Thoughts and prayers for HYUFD following the shameful republicanism from Boris Johnson and Downing Street.
It is not republicanism at all, it is the Palace who arrange their travel arrangements not No 10.
It was Welsh Labour health minister Vaughan Gething who has today said they should have stayed at home, Boris has said nothing of the kind and they are entitled to travel across the UK as part of their role as working royals representing the Queen as UK Head of State and thanking Covid workers
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
It is the pissy excuse, it was all.an accident, rather than just hands up, i was wrong. Just like the eye sight test. Big Dom should have just said I panicked, worried about my kids, but we made the wrong decision, resign, and he would be now looking forward to rejoining the government jn a month or two.
She has broken the rules, been a hypocrite, exercised poor judgment and tried to mislead about it afterwards. All very entitled and unprofessional. However in terms of breaking the rules there are many millions of us doing so regularly, some intentionally, some unintentionally. She is not in charge of creating the rules, her behaviour wont have an impact on how those millions of others behave.
Here’s a prediction... Boris objects to LPF arrangement but nonetheless agrees with EU leaders on Thursday to bring it back to Parliament for a free vote... gets it over the line, assuming SKS plays ball, without accepting personal responsibility...
Fair point.
Starmer however is out of his mind if he whips for Johnson's deal. Abstain or free vote gets the deal over the line anyway. I genuinely hope Starmer doesn't plan to die on Johnson's Brexit cross. That would be plain stupid.
I strongly suspect Starmer and anyone not in the Tory party will take the night off and ensure the Tories own the end result.
She should look in her pocket. If there are still two aces there then she should be worried. If there is only one then she has played one and it is a huge victory for Leavers everywhere.
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.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
It is the pissy excuse, it was all.an accident, rather than just hands up, i was wrong. Just like the eye sight test. Big Dom should have just said I panicked, worried about my kids, but we made the wrong decision, resign, and he would be now looking forward to rejoining the government jn a month or two.
She has broken the rules, been a hypocrite, exercised poor judgment and tried to mislead about it afterwards. All very entitled and unprofessional. However in terms of breaking the rules there are many millions of us doing so regularly, some intentionally, some unintentionally. She is not in charge of creating the rules, her behaviour wont have an impact on how those millions of others behave.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
It's been a Glasgow Labour shibboleth for very many years. Not a SNP one in particular. The confusion arises because tanks were sent for fundraising purposes, in George Square, in 1919 and m uch photographed. But tanks were most certainly also sent to Glasgow in 1919 in direct response to the strikes, to try and overawe them, though I don't think they actually appeared in George Square.
Carnyx, the lying toerags are not interested in the truth. They still think Dad's Army single handedly won the War. Churchill was an arsehole and had troops on the streets as they were crapping themselves , Scots ones were locked in their barracks.
It was of course an era when GLasgow Labour types were strong Home Rulers. Which is an interesting point to coinsider in this context, though perhaps a bit out of temporal step with the tanks. The emphasis in 1919 was Red Clydeside - all those ship riveters etc etc. ettlin to set up the Govan and Partick Soviet. Home Rule had taken something of a backseat after 1914 IIRC and Project Fear Mark 0 (Red Menace variant) was in full flow.
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.
Peter Murrell (Sturgeon husband and CE of SNP) giving evidence today to Salmond enquiry.
Replying to @BBCPhilipSim Peter Murrell said: "All I can tell you is that the first time in all my hears working for Alex across 30 years, the first time I saw anything of that nature being suggested was on 4 November 2017, that is the truth."
Amazing that, as I had heard talk about Salmond's propensities, years and years before 2017. Heard about it from a retired Kirk minister who told me no young woman should be left anywhere near him.
They are all lying between their teeth. They really are.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
What about those that don’t discuss either? Or does this count as discussion?
Peter Murrell (Sturgeon husband and CE of SNP) giving evidence today to Salmond enquiry.
Replying to @BBCPhilipSim Peter Murrell said: "All I can tell you is that the first time in all my hears working for Alex across 30 years, the first time I saw anything of that nature being suggested was on 4 November 2017, that is the truth."
Amazing that, as I had heard talk about Salmond's propensities, years and years before 2017. Heard about it from a retired Kirk minister who told me no young woman should be left anywhere near him.
They are all lying between their teeth. They really are.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
Peter Murrell (Sturgeon husband and CE of SNP) giving evidence today to Salmond enquiry.
Replying to @BBCPhilipSim Peter Murrell said: "All I can tell you is that the first time in all my hears working for Alex across 30 years, the first time I saw anything of that nature being suggested was on 4 November 2017, that is the truth."
Amazing that, as I had heard talk about Salmond's propensities, years and years before 2017. Heard about it from a retired Kirk minister who told me no young woman should be left anywhere near him.
They are all lying between their teeth. They really are.
It's what they do. It is their function.
True. It's really disgusting though, particularly the way those young women were set up and then let down. Salmond is a gruesome individual and Sturgeon, Murrell etc knew exactly who they were enabling for all those years. No wonder he's so peeved when they finally turned on him.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
Fucking hell, its in the media that Edinburgh is going to be moved down to tier 2. That is utterly ludicrous.
Cases have been drifting down very slowly, so R just below 1, which likely means cases will go up again in level 2. But they have got as low as 64/week/100,000, and at some point the damage due to the restrictions does get higher than the benefit. Back to level 3 again when cases get above 100 after Christmas?
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
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.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
Just to be clear are you suggesting the PM should go live on national television and defend Ms Burley, pointing out that anyone might do the same in her shoes?
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
Are you above zero in your count yet?
Yep. I don't want to name and shame anybody but we have 4 already.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
What exactly have the EU given up?
They have agreed to the Joint Committee doing what it was meant to all along.
The deal was based upon the Joint Committee doing its job.
The Joint Committee was not doing its job.
If the Joint Committee ended the year without doing its job we had a problem.
The EU was refusing to let the Joint Committee do its job, weaponising that.
The Government introduced the IMB as a safety net in case the Joint Committee didn't do its job, they would unilaterally do it for it.
This disarmed the weaponisation.
So now the Joint Committee has done its job.
So now the contentious IMB clauses are redundant.
So now the contentious IMB clauses can be dropped.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
What exactly have the EU given up?
They have agreed to the Joint Committee doing what it was meant to all along.
The EU was refusing to let the Joint Committee do its job, weaponising that.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
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?
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
So back where we started pre-introduction of IMB. What has the EU said or done which is different to their position previously?
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
What about those that don’t discuss either? Or does this count as discussion?
That's a pass if you are not exercised about either.
And just to do me. I said Cummings should have been reprimanded and apologized but kept his job. Therefore to maintain my integrity I need to be saying exactly the same thing about Kay Burley. So I am saying that.
The evidence of east Lothian is that moving Edinburgh to Tier 2 will see cases rocket. Like they have in every area that has been moved to tier 2 without being at tiny levels of cases.
Peter Murrell (Sturgeon husband and CE of SNP) giving evidence today to Salmond enquiry.
Replying to @BBCPhilipSim Peter Murrell said: "All I can tell you is that the first time in all my hears working for Alex across 30 years, the first time I saw anything of that nature being suggested was on 4 November 2017, that is the truth."
Amazing that, as I had heard talk about Salmond's propensities, years and years before 2017. Heard about it from a retired Kirk minister who told me no young woman should be left anywhere near him.
They are all lying between their teeth. They really are.
It's what they do. It is their function.
True. It's really disgusting though, particularly the way those young women were set up and then let down. Salmond is a gruesome individual and Sturgeon, Murrell etc knew exactly who they were enabling for all those years. No wonder he's so peeved when they finally turned on him.
Ah, so it's a 'Salmond is a gruesome abuser' day rather than a 'Salmond has been treated abominably by the SNP' day. Always good to get advance warning.
@Philip_Thompson please enlighten us on the areas where the EU have "blinked". What has changed?
The EU had been wanting the main UK/EU deal agreed before this agreement was reached. They weaponised the threat of not agreeing this thus causing GB/NI disruption if we didn't sign a UK/EU deal - which is what provoked the Government into bringing in the IM Bill.
Now this Protocol has been honoured in good faith with or without another deal as it always should have been, thus rendering the IM Bill unnecessary. It was only necessary due to the EU's stonewalling, the NI Protocol had envisioned this happening already in good faith and now it has.
You're so deluded it's hilarious. Christ.
Yet its turning out like I forecast when the IM Bill was released.
Others here were losing their minds about how this would mean the EU couldn't trust the UK - I said that this was balancing the scales making a respectful deal on NI more likely. Now one has been reached, like I said.
So who was delusional exactly?
You are delusional. Literally everything you write on this topic.
It's just complete and utter nonsense from start to finish.
Yet I was right. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
No you weren't.
We got an NI Protocol deal. Just been agreed in principle. I was right.
You can't just say you were "right" about something without ever claiming it in the first place.
I'm sorry but this is verging on the ridiculous.
I will not further engage with you on this topic because I'm starting to suspect that you're nothing more than a troll.
But I did claim it. I said that it would make a deal on the NI Protocol more likely.
A deal has just been made.
QED. What are you disputing?
Ice creams cause more bee stings. That is beyond dispute.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
So back where we started pre-introduction of IMB. What has the EU said or done which is different to their position previously?
No, pre-introduction of IMB we had as you said "EU/UK at impasse"
Now EU and UK have a Joint Committee agreement and the impasse is over.
What they have said or done differently is breaking the impasse by reaching an agreement. Get it?
It's been a Glasgow Labour shibboleth for very many years. Not a SNP one in particular. The confusion arises because tanks were sent for fundraising purposes, in George Square, in 1919 and m uch photographed. But tanks were most certainly also sent to Glasgow in 1919 in direct response to the strikes, to try and overawe them, though I don't think they actually appeared in George Square.
Carnyx, the lying toerags are not interested in the truth. They still think Dad's Army single handedly won the War. Churchill was an arsehole and had troops on the streets as they were crapping themselves , Scots ones were locked in their barracks.
It was of course an era when GLasgow Labour types were strong Home Rulers. Which is an interesting point to coinsider in this context, though perhaps a bit out of temporal step with the tanks. The emphasis in 1919 was Red Clydeside - all those ship riveters etc etc. ettlin to set up the Govan and Partick Soviet. Home Rule had taken something of a backseat after 1914 IIRC and Project Fear Mark 0 (Red Menace variant) was in full flow.
Yep, the British state shat it as it has been known to do. If only they'd realised then that a vow on fake parchment could have sorted it out.
Fucking hell, its in the media that Edinburgh is going to be moved down to tier 2. That is utterly ludicrous.
Cases have been drifting down very slowly, so R just below 1, which likely means cases will go up again in level 2. But they have got as low as 64/week/100,000, and at some point the damage due to the restrictions does get higher than the benefit. Back to level 3 again when cases get above 100 after Christmas?
Edinburgh's slow, slow, slow decrease in the new case rate has pretty much halted. Going to tier 2 will see it zoom up. Look at East Lothian - moved to tier 2 and Poof big jump in cases.
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 doesnt reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
What exactly have the EU given up?
They have agreed to the Joint Committee doing what it was meant to all along.
The EU was refusing to let the Joint Committee do its job, weaponising that.
It's been a Glasgow Labour shibboleth for very many years. Not a SNP one in particular. The confusion arises because tanks were sent for fundraising purposes, in George Square, in 1919 and m uch photographed. But tanks were most certainly also sent to Glasgow in 1919 in direct response to the strikes, to try and overawe them, though I don't think they actually appeared in George Square.
Carnyx, the lying toerags are not interested in the truth. They still think Dad's Army single handedly won the War. Churchill was an arsehole and had troops on the streets as they were crapping themselves , Scots ones were locked in their barracks.
It was of course an era when GLasgow Labour types were strong Home Rulers. Which is an interesting point to coinsider in this context, though perhaps a bit out of temporal step with the tanks. The emphasis in 1919 was Red Clydeside - all those ship riveters etc etc. ettlin to set up the Govan and Partick Soviet. Home Rule had taken something of a backseat after 1914 IIRC and Project Fear Mark 0 (Red Menace variant) was in full flow.
Yep, the British state shat it as it has been known to do. If only they'd known then that a vow on fake parchment could have sorted it out.
IIRC they were also sending tanks to Liverpool. How odd. No SNP there. *checks in unimpeachably woke leftyie SNP-supporting newspaper* Yes, here it is
It doesn't 'open the way' at all - as we recently found out, Biden has already dropped his posturing because a trade deal with the UK is likely to be highly advantageous to the US.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
What exactly have the EU given up?
They have agreed to the Joint Committee doing what it was meant to all along.
The EU was refusing to let the Joint Committee do its job, weaponising that.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
What exactly have the EU given up?
They have agreed to the Joint Committee doing what it was meant to all along.
The deal was based upon the Joint Committee doing its job.
The Joint Committee was not doing its job.
If the Joint Committee ended the year without doing its job we had a problem.
The EU was refusing to let the Joint Committee do its job, weaponising that.
The Government introduced the IMB as a safety net in case the Joint Committee didn't do its job, they would unilaterally do it for it.
This disarmed the weaponisation.
So now the Joint Committee has done its job.
So now the contentious IMB clauses are redundant.
So now the contentious IMB clauses can be dropped.
On behalf of all my fellow Europeans, I'd like to express how happy we are that you, Mr Thompson, and, hopefully, all the other fervent Brexiteers, are happy with the way things are going.
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 doesnt reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
I am OK with the UK reaching agreements with others that the UK then honours, so long as the UK can at any point give notice that we are walking away. The "no Parliament can bind its successors" principle.
I am not OK with other nations changing the rules without the UK getting a say, which is why May's deal was repellent to me - the European Parliament could change the rules and we would have no MEPs.
I was OK with EU membership because we got a say via the European Parliament. That is why I used to be a Remainer and I have never diverged from that principle. The UK got a say when in the EU - and could walk away by leaving. Now we have done that.
1. EU/UK at impasse 2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what. 3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner. 4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
3a UK and "Mr Foreigner" reach an agreement breaking the impasse of (1)
Seems a rather relevant point.
Absolutely. But you are saying the IMB "did its job".
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
The deal breaking the impasse.
The deal where we agreed to simply implement what we had already agreed?
What exactly have the EU given up?
They have agreed to the Joint Committee doing what it was meant to all along.
The EU was refusing to let the Joint Committee do its job, weaponising that.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
Just to be clear are you suggesting the PM should go live on national television and defend Ms Burley, pointing out that anyone might do the same in her shoes?
Sure - as long as the statement was followed by a months-long feeding frenzy in which the entire weight of the media blob and their army of alleged 'journalists' - herself included - did nothing but try to drive her out of her job.
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 doesnt reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
I am OK with the UK reaching agreements with others that the UK then honours, so long as the UK can at any point give notice that we are walking away. The "no Parliament can bind its successors" principle.
Then why are you happy with the NI Protocol being agreed, which binds NI to Union Law in perpetuity?
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
There is only one answer to this for anybody wishing to hold on to their integrity - it depends what she has done. The law is the law. There should be no exemptions from it for Boris Johnson cronies or for Sky TV presenters.
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 doesnt reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
I am OK with the UK reaching agreements with others that the UK then honours, so long as the UK can at any point give notice that we are walking away. The "no Parliament can bind its successors" principle.
Then why are you happy with the NI Protocol being agreed, which binds NI to Union Law in perpetuity?
Because Stormont can vote to end the Protocol. If they choose not to, that's their choice. I respect devolution. Let NI voters decide its none of my business, like Sindyref II timing.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
Just to be clear are you suggesting the PM should go live on national television and defend Ms Burley, pointing out that anyone might do the same in her shoes?
Sure - as long as the statement was followed by a months-long feeding frenzy in which the entire weight of the media blob and their army of alleged 'journalists' - herself included - did nothing but try to drive her out of her job.
Because that would be equal treatment.
I think its fairly safe to say neither will happen. She may well lose her job or get demoted at the next contract renewal though.
Not scrapping the IMB, are they? Just deleting some clauses. Still aiming to grab powers in contravention of the devolution settlements.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you can support the proposition that powers that were held by the EU should not be returned directly to the UK. Particularly (though not exclusively) because the devolved Governments in question actively campaigned *not* to have those powers repatriated at all. Sturgeon calling it a 'power grab' (though I suppose she'd know one when she sees it) was astonishing brass neck.
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.
Not scrapping the IMB, are they? Just deleting some clauses. Still aiming to grab powers in contravention of the devolution settlements.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you can support the proposition that powers that were held by the EU should not be returned directly to the UK. Particularly (though not exclusively) because the devolved Governments in question actively campaigned *not* to have those powers repatriated at all. Sturgeon calling it a 'power grab' (though I suppose she'd know one when she sees it) was astonishing brass neck.
Not a contradiction. The powers pertain to Scotland, etc. when repatriated, as a fundamental aspect of the devolution settlement. The IMB attacks that settlement a priori.
Wow. That looks like its not at all effective for first 10 days then almost 100% effective from day 10 onwards.
So get the jab and shield for 10 days it seems.
All the news outlets I have been following today seem to imply that with the Pfizer vaccine you cannot reasonably be assured of immunity until 21 days after the first jab (as long as you also have the second jab)
Fucking hell, its in the media that Edinburgh is going to be moved down to tier 2. That is utterly ludicrous.
Cases have been drifting down very slowly, so R just below 1, which likely means cases will go up again in level 2. But they have got as low as 64/week/100,000, and at some point the damage due to the restrictions does get higher than the benefit. Back to level 3 again when cases get above 100 after Christmas?
Edinburgh's slow, slow, slow decrease in the new case rate has pretty much halted. Going to tier 2 will see it zoom up. Look at East Lothian - moved to tier 2 and Poof big jump in cases.
Absolute numbers at something like 9 cases a day there are so low though that randomness can play a big role. One bad cluster and the average can really shoot up. But I agree that level 2 is bound to see an increase in cases.
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.
A veto is neither here nor there since reversing bad laws is just as important as passing new ones.
If a bad law (like the CFP or CAP) is agreed by a government that is voted out, but then any one of 27 other nations can veto removing the bad law, then that is not progress.
Wow. That looks like its not at all effective for first 10 days then almost 100% effective from day 10 onwards.
So get the jab and shield for 10 days it seems.
IIRC, the study only looked at symptomatic cases, so presumably some (perhaps most) of those cases in the first ten days might have been due to exposure to the virus before or only a couple of days after the first jab. Either way this is looking like really good news (as long as people don't get complacent).
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.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
There is only one answer to this for anybody wishing to hold on to their integrity - it depends what she has done. The law is the law. There should be no exemptions from it for Boris Johnson cronies or for Sky TV presenters.
I expect that fewer people vindictively despise Burley enough to crowdfund for the legal case, for what the police described as, “might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention”, but did not intend to take “retrospective action”.
Not scrapping the IMB, are they? Just deleting some clauses. Still aiming to grab powers in contravention of the devolution settlements.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you can support the proposition that powers that were held by the EU should not be returned directly to the UK. Particularly (though not exclusively) because the devolved Governments in question actively campaigned *not* to have those powers repatriated at all. Sturgeon calling it a 'power grab' (though I suppose she'd know one when she sees it) was astonishing brass neck.
Speaking of brass necks...
'Powers will return to Holyrood from EU post-Brexit, says Michael Gove'
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.
No, they have the right to leave as Brexit has proven. What they dont have the right to do is change their laws to x and stay a member of a group that says x is not allowed.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
Indeed and we've made that choice. We've left.
If you say "do as I say, if you don't like it the door is over there" then don't be shocked if someone chooses to walk through the door.
Not scrapping the IMB, are they? Just deleting some clauses. Still aiming to grab powers in contravention of the devolution settlements.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you can support the proposition that powers that were held by the EU should not be returned directly to the UK. Particularly (though not exclusively) because the devolved Governments in question actively campaigned *not* to have those powers repatriated at all. Sturgeon calling it a 'power grab' (though I suppose she'd know one when she sees it) was astonishing brass neck.
The powers were held by the EU prior to the devolution process and should be returned to the bodies that, post devolution, are now responsible for those areas of policy. I cannot see how anyone who supports the return of powers from the EU can say that the process should not be taken to its natural conclusion and those powers devolved to the bodies responsible for those policies.
Her spend a penny nonsense is as bad as testing my eye sight...
Burley, who apologised over the incident and claimed she had only broken the rules because she needed to “spend a penny”, went to the Century Club in Soho, London, on Saturday night in a group of 10 that included Sky colleagues Beth Rigby, Inzamam Rashid and Sam Washington.
The group sat at two tables, of six and four, before going on to a nearby restaurant, Folie. A smaller group of four then returned to Burley’s home to continue the celebrations.
-------
So she went to.dinner with people not from her household...not allowed....then had people back to her house...not allowed. There is also claims that her popping into another venue for a tinkle, was actually 2hrs with other people.
That isn't an inadvertent rule break, as some sort of rule like don't go more than 5 miles from your house and you ended up being 6 because went to get petrol.
Seriously, who cares? She works with these people all week right?
Oh, the Corona virus must LOVE you.....
All I am saying is that I find it impossible to get exercised by this stuff, I'm sure millions of people do similar. And as she works with most of the people involved she will meet them in the studio daily I would expect.
Clearly it's against the rules but I sniff a touch of faux outrage.
Personally, I don't care but the simple fact is she is vocal in having a go at others on national TV and doing a fairly good job of getting on her high horse about breaking restrictions. Now she is being hoist by her own petard.
The fact she gave such a sh1t excuse also suggests she is not the brightest star in the sky.
Good integrity test, this.
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
How about those who would like the same standards to apply to both? Especially given what a gigantic hypocrite she has proven to be about the whole affair, it's a bit rich for her to claim it's no big deal now.
5.
Calling someone a hypocrite is not being "up in arms".
It depends. If you get animated in the process you are up in arms about the hypocrisy.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/pkelso/status/1336305629665910785
It's a great victory!!
It was Welsh Labour health minister Vaughan Gething who has today said they should have stayed at home, Boris has said nothing of the kind and they are entitled to travel across the UK as part of their role as working royals representing the Queen as UK Head of State and thanking Covid workers
https://twitter.com/Fox_Claire/status/1336304492699136005
Reading through them quickly I think it fair to say that no one in their right minds will be travelling anywhere.
We already know how some will react...
Anyone who said no big deal about Cummings and is now up in arms about Burley has failed.
I'm counting.
1. EU/UK at impasse
2. UK introduces IMB which will break its most recently signed international treaty and which will show Johnny Foreigner what's what.
3. UK meets with said Mr Foreigner.
4. UK withdraws IMB
@Philip_Thompson because you seem to be on top of these things, what exactly did the EU give up in this sequence.
TIA
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
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.
Replying to
@BBCPhilipSim
Peter Murrell said: "All I can tell you is that the first time in all my hears working for Alex across 30 years, the first time I saw anything of that nature being suggested was on 4 November 2017, that is the truth."
Amazing that, as I had heard talk about Salmond's propensities, years and years before 2017. Heard about it from a retired Kirk minister who told me no young woman should be left anywhere near him.
They are all lying between their teeth. They really are.
Seems a rather relevant point.
In what way did it do its job given that it has now been withdrawn? What is the quid pro quo that we got them to do by its previous presence?
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/18843816.legal-challenge-cummings-lockdown-breach-thrown/
What exactly have the EU given up?
Felix and 3 others.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1336221464333348869
And just to do me. I said Cummings should have been reprimanded and apologized but kept his job. Therefore to maintain my integrity I need to be saying exactly the same thing about Kay Burley. So I am saying that.
What's she done btw?
Now EU and UK have a Joint Committee agreement and the impasse is over.
What they have said or done differently is breaking the impasse by reaching an agreement. Get it?
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1336307512866385922
The bit about 'strong immunity in 10 days' is going further than our experts did, and very encouraging.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=East Lothian
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1336305838705741824?s=20
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 doesnt reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4230310/Britain-s-forgotten-revolution-1919.html
Try again please.
I am not OK with other nations changing the rules without the UK getting a say, which is why May's deal was repellent to me - the European Parliament could change the rules and we would have no MEPs.
I was OK with EU membership because we got a say via the European Parliament. That is why I used to be a Remainer and I have never diverged from that principle. The UK got a say when in the EU - and could walk away by leaving. Now we have done that.
Because that would be equal treatment.
https://twitter.com/AlexanderPHRose/status/1336299885612707842
So get the jab and shield for 10 days it seems.
The paranoia amongst some Leavers that any agreement with the EU must mean it’s bad for the UK is part of the problem of finding a trade deal .
In terms of the NI protocol perhaps both sides are happy . Is that now such a crime !
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.
The IMB threatened to renege on that deal.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
If a bad law (like the CFP or CAP) is agreed by a government that is voted out, but then any one of 27 other nations can veto removing the bad law, then that is not progress.
Then their choices become: Stay a member of the group and dont do x, or leave and be free to do x.
The choice is still theirs, they are sovereign, not the group.
To me this demonstrates the market perversion of massive VC funding towards monopolising low margin businesses.
'Powers will return to Holyrood from EU post-Brexit, says Michael Gove'
https://tinyurl.com/y3yvnz48
If you say "do as I say, if you don't like it the door is over there" then don't be shocked if someone chooses to walk through the door.
As here with Mr Blue. He was cool as you like about Cummings' hypocrisy but is now all over Burley for hers. Hence why he becomes the 5th person on here to have lost their integrity over this.
What is your position on Burley btw? I can't recall seeing it.