I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
Why bother? They speak proper English in Ireland so why bother with a different website and distribution? (I assume Amazon have a local company structure, but that's not the same thing as a front of house).
I would guess that if there was an amazon.ie (which does indeed redirect to amazon.co.uk), they'd also have to support Gaelic.
There is a currency problem though. No doubt Amazon contrive to make money if you pay in Euros.
Amazon is increasingly a Chinese tat bazaar anyway. I'm not sure double tariffs are allowed?
Still an important supplier for a lot of stuff, esp. books and music/film. The real problem will come if the Irish equivalent of the Post Office in the UK do the same and charge £16 flat rate for handling VAT charges on merchandise ex GB (which is what the UK currently does for all non-EU mail order, and will impose on stuff from the EU barring a miracle). So that is Amazon UK - and a lot of other merchants in the non-Nirish UK - partly screwed. UNless they set up something in NI?
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.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Richard it is hugely telling that you compare the UK as a sovereign member of the EU to a slave.
Have you no confidence in your country, man?
Yep I have far more confidence in it than you do. A freed slave can go on to do wonderous things. But only once they have freed themselves from the shackles. You seem to prefer the shackles perhaps because it is you who lacks confidence in the country.
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.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
People metaphorically up in arms about hypocrisy - as you two clearly are here with Burley - rarely use the actual words "metaphorically up in arms" because it's not cool to look like you're too bothered. So what they tend to say is they are merely "laughing at the double standards". Bit silly, but it's fine because it's obvious to the likes of me what is meant.
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
She's not a hypocrite for breaching the rules. Breaking rules doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you a rule breaker.
She's a hypocrite for breaking the rules after showing zero tolerance to those like Cummings who broke them before her. As far as I'm aware Cummings never spent week ranting about others breaking the rules and calling for them to be fired from their jobs before he was outed for doing what he did.
My opinion has always been that everyone breaks rules from time to time and people should use their own judgement and do their best. That I don't especially care if a rule is broken from time to time. To me that applies equally to Burley and Cummings. I think firing someone for something as meaningless as this would be a gross overreaction - the same as I would say for Cummings or Patel etc.
So I'm being consistent. Thank you.
This is far from satisfactory. We already agree on Burley's hypocrisy so all of that bit was gratuitous. But thank you anyway. Now to the heart of the matter -
In order to be acquitted of the charge (and consequent loss of integrity) you need to either (i) say here and now to me and the rest of the Board that Dominic Cummings was also iyo a hypocrite or (ii) make the challenging case that it is NOT an act of rank hypocrisy for a person to break the high profile rules that they themselves have been instrumental in very recently creating.
You remain in the dock, pending.
(ii) is what I said at the time though wasn't it, so why do you want me to repeat it?
I said at the time it was understandable to break the guidelines if you think you have a reason to need to do so and that was the same for everyone. I say the same today. Nothing has changed.
Ok. So you can neither bring yourself to say that it's an act of hypocrisy for somebody to flout the rules they themselves created, nor can you make any non-risible case for why it is not.
It's a shame. You are CONVICTED and have lost your integrity.
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.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
People metaphorically up in arms about hypocrisy - as you two clearly are here with Burley - rarely use the actual words "metaphorically up in arms" because it's not cool to look like you're too bothered. So what they tend to say is they are merely "laughing at the double standards". Bit silly, but it's fine because it's obvious to the likes of me what is meant.
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
She's not a hypocrite for breaching the rules. Breaking rules doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you a rule breaker.
She's a hypocrite for breaking the rules after showing zero tolerance to those like Cummings who broke them before her. As far as I'm aware Cummings never spent week ranting about others breaking the rules and calling for them to be fired from their jobs before he was outed for doing what he did.
My opinion has always been that everyone breaks rules from time to time and people should use their own judgement and do their best. That I don't especially care if a rule is broken from time to time. To me that applies equally to Burley and Cummings. I think firing someone for something as meaningless as this would be a gross overreaction - the same as I would say for Cummings or Patel etc.
So I'm being consistent. Thank you.
This is far from satisfactory. We already agree on Burley's hypocrisy so all of that bit was gratuitous. But thank you anyway. Now to the heart of the matter -
In order to be acquitted of the charge (and consequent loss of integrity) you need to either (i) say here and now to me and the rest of the Board that Dominic Cummings was also iyo a hypocrite or (ii) make the challenging case that it is NOT an act of rank hypocrisy for a person to break the high profile rules that they themselves have been instrumental in very recently creating.
You remain in the dock, pending.
(ii) is what I said at the time though wasn't it, so why do you want me to repeat it?
I said at the time it was understandable to break the guidelines if you think you have a reason to need to do so and that was the same for everyone. I say the same today. Nothing has changed.
Ok. So you can neither bring yourself to say that it's an act of hypocrisy for somebody to flout the rules they themselves created, nor can you make any non-risible case for why it is not.
It's a shame. You are CONVICTED and have lost your integrity.
So that's 6 people now. 4 plus you and Felix.
I can and did make a non risible case. We are all rule breakers, every single one of us. Myself included.
I am happy to accept and admit to myself that I break rules too sometimes so I would be a hypocrite if I lost my mind about others doing so too. I don't want to be a hypocrite or judge others harsher than I judge myself so I'm not doing so.
I will thus show tolerance to others and judge issues on their merit rather than being intolerant closed minded hypocrite.
No. That wasn't the only dispute. It is probably part of what helped though, just liked the pressure the IMB put on the situation and the ticking clock.
I can't help thinking that at least some in the ERG and the DUP are not going to be very pleased about today's WA news. We now - and definitively - have an internal UK customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of the UK subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU. Of course, for non-loons and yoons it is very good news as it means the UK has avoided becoming a pariah state. But such a development seemed to be what many on the more extreme fringes of Brexitania were after. I wonder how they will react.
Indeed, although it's only good news relatively speaking. It's still a disaster which was completely avoidable. What makes it particularly galling is that, by a particularly successful piece of British diplomacy, Theresa May had managed to get the EU to agree to an alternative which was miles better for us, and which for once would have given us some of those 'cards' which the Brexiteers wrongly tell us we hold. Under her NI protocol, all of the time pressure would have been on the EU to do a deal, since if they didn't, we'd get the ultimate cherry-pick of full access to the Single Market without all of the obligations. We'd be sitting pretty, buffing our nails, while the EU would have been the ones anxious to finalise the trade deal.
Why bother? They speak proper English in Ireland so why bother with a different website and distribution? (I assume Amazon have a local company structure, but that's not the same thing as a front of house).
I would guess that if there was an amazon.ie (which does indeed redirect to amazon.co.uk), they'd also have to support Gaelic.
There is a currency problem though. No doubt Amazon contrive to make money if you pay in Euros.
Amazon is increasingly a Chinese tat bazaar anyway. I'm not sure double tariffs are allowed?
Still an important supplier for a lot of stuff, esp. books and music/film. The real problem will come if the Irish equivalent of the Post Office in the UK do the same and charge £16 flat rate for handling VAT charges on merchandise ex GB (which is what the UK currently does for all non-EU mail order, and will impose on stuff from the EU barring a miracle). So that is Amazon UK - and a lot of other merchants in the non-Nirish UK - partly screwed. UNless they set up something in NI?
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.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Richard it is hugely telling that you compare the UK as a sovereign member of the EU to a slave.
Have you no confidence in your country, man?
Yep I have far more confidence in it than you do. A freed slave can go on to do wonderous things. But only once they have freed themselves from the shackles. You seem to prefer the shackles perhaps because it is you who lacks confidence in the country.
Bloody hell you really think that being in the EU is like being a slave? What a horrible, poor, frustrated, sad last 40 years you have had.
Explains a lot of your posts on here.
Oh and that monster under the bed? Not there. Honest.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
Let's stay grounded and accurate. People are being called out for being hypocrites about hypocrisy. As evidenced by defending or downplaying that of PM Chief Political Advisor Dominic Cummings and yet calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
You seem to live in a parallel universe, I have to to see anyone at all that is "calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley".
You're being a bit too literal! Nobody has called for her head to be severed from her body - at least not on PB - but there have been calls for her to be sacked. Which is obviously what I meant. No such calls from you, I hasten to stress. You don't have that problem. Indeed all you need to do to wriggle completely free of the charge and leave the dock with your integrity intact is to say that iyo DC was a hypocrite for breaking the rules that he himself was a key player in drafting. That's all. It's very easy and my money's on you doing it.
Since I don't view breaking rules as hypocrisy I'll pass thanks. Everyone breaks rules, not the end of the world.
I'm atheist but was brought up going to an Anglican school. Every single week we had to go to Chapel and every single week the Chaplain would say "forgive us father for we have sinned", or we would say the Lord's Prayer "forgives us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".
I don't believe in the heavenly father or most of Christianities teachings but I do agree that we all break the rules. Every single one of us. No exceptions. To err is human and I don't want, demand or expect infallibility from anyone. So no breaking the rules isn't shocking, we all are rule breakers. Get over it already.
What a load of sanctimonious tosh. Of course everyone breaks rules. So what?
Cummings should obviously have been sacked for so blatantly breaking the rules he helped make, refusing to apologise, and coming up with excuses that insulted almost everyone's intelligence. If you can't see that then there's really no hope for you.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
Let's stay grounded and accurate. People are being called out for being hypocrites about hypocrisy. As evidenced by defending or downplaying that of PM Chief Political Advisor Dominic Cummings and yet calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
ROFLMFAO -I much prefer Judge Judy to Judge Kinba - you need to get a life m8 - pronto!
You sound a bit flustered and that is understandable. Loss of integrity is no joke.
No. That wasn't the only dispute. It is probably part of what helped though, just liked the pressure the IMB put on the situation and the ticking clock.
Ah yes, the thing you have yet to provide evidence about. Gotcha.
My best guess for a compromise is a can-kick/fudge - i.e. we agree regression governance on LPF clauses for 10 years only subject to review of scope/applicability of the whole FTA at that stage and bilateral UK-EU arbitration for piss-taking in the meantime. So it gives some medium-term stability and surety to the EU of a LPF but also isn't "permanent" either.
The EU has to move on fish though. We aren't accepting 18% only over 10 years. They know that.
Yep. Something like this. Fish and FOM are the "wins". Stay aligned on most other things. Serious divergence someday over the rainbow.
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.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Richard it is hugely telling that you compare the UK as a sovereign member of the EU to a slave.
Have you no confidence in your country, man?
Yep I have far more confidence in it than you do. A freed slave can go on to do wonderous things. But only once they have freed themselves from the shackles. You seem to prefer the shackles perhaps because it is you who lacks confidence in the country.
Bloody hell you really think that being in the EU is like being a slave? What a horrible, poor, frustrated, sad last 40 years you have had.
Explains a lot of your posts on here.
Oh and that monster under the bed? Not there. Honest.
Topping you already know that I am far brighter, better adjusted and just plain more successful in life than you are. Stop making a fool of yourself. Try reading a dictionary instead. It might help you understand things a little better.
No. That wasn't the only dispute. It is probably part of what helped though, just liked the pressure the IMB put on the situation and the ticking clock.
Ah yes, the thing you have yet to provide evidence about. Gotcha.
This is all very unbecoming.
You didn't even accept the dispute was resolved and there was a new agreement, which was very unbecoming. How am I supposed to convince someone who doesn't accept there is a new agreement, the reason why that agreement was reached.
You're acting like an antivax, lockdown sceptic who denies that COVID even exists. If you deny hard enough that COVID exists then it's not possible to get you to accept that there's a reason for a lockdown or a reason for vaccinations.
Until you accept the simple truth that a new agreement was reached today that didn't exist before it isn't possible to discuss why it was reached.
How will history judge Osborne? He told Cameron he was crazy to plan to hold a referendum. But should he have done more to stop it? Resigned?
Making local councils in the North of England bear the brunt of austerity didn't help Remain's cause.
Citation needed. And a massive non-sequitur to boot.
It requires a bit of background but when Councils lost their central Government grants in return for keeping the council tax money - councils down south where the average house is in band D or above got more money per house than those councils where the the average house is in band B
Ironically it's because most of the councils that lost money were Labour Councils at the time many of those councils now have Tory or NoC council leadership and Tory MPs
Topping you already know that I am far brighter, better adjusted and just plain more successful in life than you are. Stop making a fool of yourself. Try reading a dictionary instead. It might help you understand things a little better.
Hi Richard, nice to see you posting. I think the moment for our very long-delayed bet settlement is approaching very soon...
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
Let's stay grounded and accurate. People are being called out for being hypocrites about hypocrisy. As evidenced by defending or downplaying that of PM Chief Political Advisor Dominic Cummings and yet calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
You seem to live in a parallel universe, I have to to see anyone at all that is "calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley".
You're being a bit too literal! Nobody has called for her head to be severed from her body - at least not on PB - but there have been calls for her to be sacked. Which is obviously what I meant. No such calls from you, I hasten to stress. You don't have that problem. Indeed all you need to do to wriggle completely free of the charge and leave the dock with your integrity intact is to say that iyo DC was a hypocrite for breaking the rules that he himself was a key player in drafting. That's all. It's very easy and my money's on you doing it.
Since I don't view breaking rules as hypocrisy I'll pass thanks. Everyone breaks rules, not the end of the world.
I'm atheist but was brought up going to an Anglican school. Every single week we had to go to Chapel and every single week the Chaplain would say "forgive us father for we have sinned", or we would say the Lord's Prayer "forgives us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".
I don't believe in the heavenly father or most of Christianities teachings but I do agree that we all break the rules. Every single one of us. No exceptions. To err is human and I don't want, demand or expect infallibility from anyone. So no breaking the rules isn't shocking, we all are rule breakers. Get over it already.
What a load of sanctimonious tosh. Of course everyone breaks rules. So what?
Cummings should obviously have been sacked for so blatantly breaking the rules he helped make, refusing to apologise, and coming up with excuses that insulted almost everyone's intelligence. If you can't see that then there's really no hope for you.
I'm being sanctimonious for being unsanctimonious and unjudgemental? You want to run the logic of that by me again? 🤔
I don't think he should be sacked. I don't say Burley should either. I don't believe in sacking everyone who makes a mistake or upsets a pitchfork wielding mob of vigilantes demanding blood sacrifice.
No. That wasn't the only dispute. It is probably part of what helped though, just liked the pressure the IMB put on the situation and the ticking clock.
Ah yes, the thing you have yet to provide evidence about. Gotcha.
This is all very unbecoming.
You didn't even accept the dispute was resolved and there was a new agreement, which was very unbecoming. How am I supposed to convince someone who doesn't accept there is a new agreement, the reason why that agreement was reached.
You're acting like an antivax, lockdown sceptic who denies that COVID even exists. If you deny hard enough that COVID exists then it's not possible to get you to accept that there's a reason for a lockdown or a reason for vaccinations.
Until you accept the simple truth that a new agreement was reached today that didn't exist before it isn't possible to discuss why it was reached.
Of course I accepted that there was an agreement. That was not in dispute so it was not even worth engaging with. Your obsession with it is just weird.
You are still yet to provide evidence that the IMB led to an agreement being reached.
I can't help thinking that at least some in the ERG and the DUP are not going to be very pleased about today's WA news. We now - and definitively - have an internal UK customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of the UK subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU. Of course, for non-loons and yoons it is very good news as it means the UK has avoided becoming a pariah state. But such a development seemed to be what many on the more extreme fringes of Brexitania were after. I wonder how they will react.
Indeed, although it's only good news relatively speaking. It's still a disaster which was completely avoidable. What makes it particularly galling is that, by a particularly successful piece of British diplomacy, Theresa May had managed to get the EU to agree to an alternative which was miles better for us, and which for once would have given us some of those 'cards' which the Brexiteers wrongly tell us we hold. Under her NI protocol, all of the time pressure would have been on the EU to do a deal, since if they didn't, we'd get the ultimate cherry-pick of full access to the Single Market without all of the obligations. We'd be sitting pretty, buffing our nails, while the EU would have been the ones anxious to finalise the trade deal.
So much voluntarily thrown away.
And of course the grand daddy, Dave's deal.
We are slightly becoming like the Palestinians who, according to Abba Eban, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity in their negotiations with Israel/the US.
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.
That is like saying that a slave, for as long as he could not buy himself out of slavery, was still free because the option to buy himself out still existed even if he could not make use of it.
Richard it is hugely telling that you compare the UK as a sovereign member of the EU to a slave.
Have you no confidence in your country, man?
Yep I have far more confidence in it than you do. A freed slave can go on to do wonderous things. But only once they have freed themselves from the shackles. You seem to prefer the shackles perhaps because it is you who lacks confidence in the country.
Bloody hell you really think that being in the EU is like being a slave? What a horrible, poor, frustrated, sad last 40 years you have had.
Explains a lot of your posts on here.
Oh and that monster under the bed? Not there. Honest.
Topping you already know that I am far brighter, better adjusted and just plain more successful in life than you are. Stop making a fool of yourself. Try reading a dictionary instead. It might help you understand things a little better.
But not better looking.
As I said, you thinking that being a member of the EU as a sovereign nation was akin to being a slave speaks volumes about you and puts all your posts into context.
Topping you already know that I am far brighter, better adjusted and just plain more successful in life than you are. Stop making a fool of yourself. Try reading a dictionary instead. It might help you understand things a little better.
Hi Richard, nice to see you posting. I think the moment for our very long-delayed bet settlement is approaching very soon...
Indeed. Though to be fair I have posted on here twice in the last year saying I was willing to settle anyway because it was clear that my preferred option - and the one I had backed - was not going to come to fruition. Just let me know how you would like the bet settled and I will sort it straight away. I will happily take the chance that Boris is not going to magically swerve us into EFTA in the next 3 weeks
How will history judge Osborne? He told Cameron he was crazy to plan to hold a referendum. But should he have done more to stop it? Resigned?
Making local councils in the North of England bear the brunt of austerity didn't help Remain's cause.
Citation needed. And a massive non-sequitur to boot.
It requires a bit of background but when Councils lost their central Government grants in return for keeping the council tax money - councils down south where the average house is in band D or above got more money per house than those councils where the the average house is in band B
Sure, that was the divisive line Labour ran. Of course it ignored a whole load of stuff, such as the massively over-favourable settlement those councils got compared with (say) East Sussex, which is not a rich county. And even if it were the perception amongst voters, it's rather odd that it manifested itself in a vote for Tory-led policy opposed by those local Labour politicians, and even more that it has resulted in a Red Wall turning blue... so I'm inclined to the view that, as regards the influence on the referendum result, it's garbage.
Topping you already know that I am far brighter, better adjusted and just plain more successful in life than you are. Stop making a fool of yourself. Try reading a dictionary instead. It might help you understand things a little better.
Hi Richard, nice to see you posting. I think the moment for our very long-delayed bet settlement is approaching very soon...
Indeed. Though to be fair I have posted on here twice in the last year saying I was willing to settle anyway because it was clear that my preferred option - and the one I had backed - was not going to come to fruition. Just let me know how you would like the bet settled and I will sort it straight away. I will happily take the chance that Boris is not going to magically swerve us into EFTA in the next 3 weeks
Good man. A donation to St Mungo's would be great.
No. That wasn't the only dispute. It is probably part of what helped though, just liked the pressure the IMB put on the situation and the ticking clock.
Ah yes, the thing you have yet to provide evidence about. Gotcha.
This is all very unbecoming.
You didn't even accept the dispute was resolved and there was a new agreement, which was very unbecoming. How am I supposed to convince someone who doesn't accept there is a new agreement, the reason why that agreement was reached.
You're acting like an antivax, lockdown sceptic who denies that COVID even exists. If you deny hard enough that COVID exists then it's not possible to get you to accept that there's a reason for a lockdown or a reason for vaccinations.
Until you accept the simple truth that a new agreement was reached today that didn't exist before it isn't possible to discuss why it was reached.
Of course I accepted that there was an agreement. That was not in dispute so it was not even worth engaging with. Your obsession with it is just weird.
You are still yet to provide evidence that the IMB led to an agreement being reached.
Actually it was in dispute. This is what started the conversation of you asking for citations, people claiming that there was no new agreement today.
Now we have agreed we will in fact abide by the deal we already agreed.
It's fucking genius!
Whether there was even a new agreement today is what was being discussed. I told you repeatedly I wasn't getting into the why, you were the one throwing that in not me while still repeatedly asking for citations that there even was a new agreement.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
I can't help thinking that at least some in the ERG and the DUP are not going to be very pleased about today's WA news. We now - and definitively - have an internal UK customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of the UK subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU. Of course, for non-loons and yoons it is very good news as it means the UK has avoided becoming a pariah state. But such a development seemed to be what many on the more extreme fringes of Brexitania were after. I wonder how they will react.
Indeed, although it's only good news relatively speaking. It's still a disaster which was completely avoidable. What makes it particularly galling is that, by a particularly successful piece of British diplomacy, Theresa May had managed to get the EU to agree to an alternative which was miles better for us, and which for once would have given us some of those 'cards' which the Brexiteers wrongly tell us we hold. Under her NI protocol, all of the time pressure would have been on the EU to do a deal, since if they didn't, we'd get the ultimate cherry-pick of full access to the Single Market without all of the obligations. We'd be sitting pretty, buffing our nails, while the EU would have been the ones anxious to finalise the trade deal.
So much voluntarily thrown away.
You will be no OJ fan but imo this here is an excellent summary from him of why we are where are on Brexit. You have to read the (short) piece not just the headline -
Did you ever come to a reason why the postivity rate is cyclic over the week? Makes no sense to me at all.
Looks like the peaks are on the weekend? Might be because people with light symptoms are less likely to arrange a test then, so more of the tests are on people with more serious symptoms who are more likely to have the virus.
It's the scale of the spike that makes me wonder - a massive jump each Monday.
You're feeling a bit rubbish over the weekend, but hoped it would just go away. Now it's Monday morning, you're still feeling rubbish and you decide to phone in sick, at which point you better also arrange for a test. Your employer might even remind you.
After lying on the sofa groaning all weekend, the wife decides that if you are too sick to do your tasks... get a test!
Technical question. Every time I log in I am now treated as a stranger(even though the keep me logged in button is ticked). Is this a new security device?
You will be no OJ fan but imo this here is an excellent summary from him of why we are where are on Brexit. You have to read the (short) piece not just the headline -
I can't help thinking that at least some in the ERG and the DUP are not going to be very pleased about today's WA news. We now - and definitively - have an internal UK customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of the UK subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU. Of course, for non-loons and yoons it is very good news as it means the UK has avoided becoming a pariah state. But such a development seemed to be what many on the more extreme fringes of Brexitania were after. I wonder how they will react.
Indeed, although it's only good news relatively speaking. It's still a disaster which was completely avoidable. What makes it particularly galling is that, by a particularly successful piece of British diplomacy, Theresa May had managed to get the EU to agree to an alternative which was miles better for us, and which for once would have given us some of those 'cards' which the Brexiteers wrongly tell us we hold. Under her NI protocol, all of the time pressure would have been on the EU to do a deal, since if they didn't, we'd get the ultimate cherry-pick of full access to the Single Market without all of the obligations. We'd be sitting pretty, buffing our nails, while the EU would have been the ones anxious to finalise the trade deal.
So much voluntarily thrown away.
But then Boris might never have become Prime Minister, and that would never have done.
You need to explain and show WHY the committee was at an impasse.
You then need to explain and show WHAT has changed in the agreement to cause the impasse to be over.
With sources.
If you can't do that, then once again you're talking nothing but meaningless dross.
Yes I said that we were at an impasse. I'm not sure we were. We had a deal and then didn't like it so introduced the IMB which we now seem to have rescinded and hence we are back to the deal.
No we're not back to where we were, because where we were was with a Joint Committee not reaching an agreement - where we are now is with a Joint Committee that has an agreement.
The Joint Committee agreement is the change. It is a significant delta that means we are not in the same place we were before.
You're still failing to backup everything you're saying.
The key questions are:
1. Why could the Joint Committee not reach an agreement? 2. What has changed to now allow the Joint Committee to reach an agreement?
I'm not going to answer your shifted goalpost questions as to "why" until you accept the fact I was right that the Joint Committee "agreement in principle" is a meaningful change from where we were before.
There's no point me trying to explain why something has changed, if you don't even accept that it is changed.
You are trying to argue that the reason the Joint Committee now has an agreement is because of the IM Bill. That is your argument, yes?
The only way for you to evidence that is to show WHY there was no agreement previously and to show HOW the EU have now "moved" to enable us to be happy with the agreement.
You've given zero evidence of your ridiculous argument and therefore it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
OMG OMG how will PT survive the night after such treatment - almost as bad as being called out by Kinabalu for not drooling at Kay Burley's feet cos she's a great journalist. These are truly the end of days for those on the right!
Let's stay grounded and accurate. People are being called out for being hypocrites about hypocrisy. As evidenced by defending or downplaying that of PM Chief Political Advisor Dominic Cummings and yet calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley.
5 convicted so far with the verdict on Philip in the balance. We await his reply to my key question.
You seem to live in a parallel universe, I have to to see anyone at all that is "calling for the head of Sky News Reporter Kay Burley".
You're being a bit too literal! Nobody has called for her head to be severed from her body - at least not on PB - but there have been calls for her to be sacked. Which is obviously what I meant. No such calls from you, I hasten to stress. You don't have that problem. Indeed all you need to do to wriggle completely free of the charge and leave the dock with your integrity intact is to say that iyo DC was a hypocrite for breaking the rules that he himself was a key player in drafting. That's all. It's very easy and my money's on you doing it.
Since I don't view breaking rules as hypocrisy I'll pass thanks. Everyone breaks rules, not the end of the world.
I'm atheist but was brought up going to an Anglican school. Every single week we had to go to Chapel and every single week the Chaplain would say "forgive us father for we have sinned", or we would say the Lord's Prayer "forgives us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".
I don't believe in the heavenly father or most of Christianities teachings but I do agree that we all break the rules. Every single one of us. No exceptions. To err is human and I don't want, demand or expect infallibility from anyone. So no breaking the rules isn't shocking, we all are rule breakers. Get over it already.
What a load of sanctimonious tosh. Of course everyone breaks rules. So what?
Cummings should obviously have been sacked for so blatantly breaking the rules he helped make, refusing to apologise, and coming up with excuses that insulted almost everyone's intelligence. If you can't see that then there's really no hope for you.
I'm being sanctimonious for being unsanctimonious and unjudgemental? You want to run the logic of that by me again? 🤔
I don't think he should be sacked. I don't say Burley should either. I don't believe in sacking everyone who makes a mistake or upsets a pitchfork wielding mob of vigilantes demanding blood sacrifice.
Like I said no hope for you. Sacking Cummings is obviously not the same as
"sacking everyone who makes a mistake or upsets a pitchfork wielding mob of vigilantes demanding blood sacrifice."
In your ridiculous words.
It's simply common sense.
Otherwise the government is either saying: Here are some really important rules to reduce a deadly epidemic but you don't need to follow them. Or: Here are the rules for you, but they don't apply to us.
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
So the UK have a win on the form and the EU on the substance. (After all, there will be EU people with a supervisory role on UK soil). Would anyone be surprised if that pattern repeats a lot in the next few days?
And if a brass plaque appears in three months time, and a flag in six, the circus will (please) have moved on.
I can't help thinking that at least some in the ERG and the DUP are not going to be very pleased about today's WA news. We now - and definitively - have an internal UK customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of the UK subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU. Of course, for non-loons and yoons it is very good news as it means the UK has avoided becoming a pariah state. But such a development seemed to be what many on the more extreme fringes of Brexitania were after. I wonder how they will react.
Indeed, although it's only good news relatively speaking. It's still a disaster which was completely avoidable. What makes it particularly galling is that, by a particularly successful piece of British diplomacy, Theresa May had managed to get the EU to agree to an alternative which was miles better for us, and which for once would have given us some of those 'cards' which the Brexiteers wrongly tell us we hold. Under her NI protocol, all of the time pressure would have been on the EU to do a deal, since if they didn't, we'd get the ultimate cherry-pick of full access to the Single Market without all of the obligations. We'd be sitting pretty, buffing our nails, while the EU would have been the ones anxious to finalise the trade deal.
So much voluntarily thrown away.
But then Boris might never have become Prime Minister, and that would never have done.
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.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
People metaphorically up in arms about hypocrisy - as you two clearly are here with Burley - rarely use the actual words "metaphorically up in arms" because it's not cool to look like you're too bothered. So what they tend to say is they are merely "laughing at the double standards". Bit silly, but it's fine because it's obvious to the likes of me what is meant.
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
She's not a hypocrite for breaching the rules. Breaking rules doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you a rule breaker.
She's a hypocrite for breaking the rules after showing zero tolerance to those like Cummings who broke them before her. As far as I'm aware Cummings never spent week ranting about others breaking the rules and calling for them to be fired from their jobs before he was outed for doing what he did.
My opinion has always been that everyone breaks rules from time to time and people should use their own judgement and do their best. That I don't especially care if a rule is broken from time to time. To me that applies equally to Burley and Cummings. I think firing someone for something as meaningless as this would be a gross overreaction - the same as I would say for Cummings or Patel etc.
So I'm being consistent. Thank you.
This is far from satisfactory. We already agree on Burley's hypocrisy so all of that bit was gratuitous. But thank you anyway. Now to the heart of the matter -
In order to be acquitted of the charge (and consequent loss of integrity) you need to either (i) say here and now to me and the rest of the Board that Dominic Cummings was also iyo a hypocrite or (ii) make the challenging case that it is NOT an act of rank hypocrisy for a person to break the high profile rules that they themselves have been instrumental in very recently creating.
You remain in the dock, pending.
(ii) is what I said at the time though wasn't it, so why do you want me to repeat it?
I said at the time it was understandable to break the guidelines if you think you have a reason to need to do so and that was the same for everyone. I say the same today. Nothing has changed.
Ok. So you can neither bring yourself to say that it's an act of hypocrisy for somebody to flout the rules they themselves created, nor can you make any non-risible case for why it is not.
It's a shame. You are CONVICTED and have lost your integrity.
So that's 6 people now. 4 plus you and Felix.
I can and did make a non risible case. We are all rule breakers, every single one of us. Myself included.
I am happy to accept and admit to myself that I break rules too sometimes so I would be a hypocrite if I lost my mind about others doing so too. I don't want to be a hypocrite or judge others harsher than I judge myself so I'm not doing so.
I will thus show tolerance to others and judge issues on their merit rather than being intolerant closed minded hypocrite.
If it were "non risible" nobody would be laughing. But they are. Can't you hear them? No, sorry, case closed. Take it on the chin and make a start on the road back to redemption. If all goes well that could happen as soon as tomorrow afternoon.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
To try a different and maybe interesting question.
At what point in EU integration will the Austrian State Treaty be violated -
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
Might be dangerous if it were possible to take it seriously but it is so plainly bonkers it wil be laughed out of court, literally.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
To try a different and maybe interesting question.
At what point in EU integration will the Austrian State Treaty be violated -
1) Already is? 2) Will be in 10 years? 3) ?
Wasn’t it superseded in 1990 when Germany reunified?
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
Might be serious if it were possible to take it seriously but it is so plainly bonkers it wil be laughed out of court, literally.
Wasting court time with frivilous or nonsensical petitions for the advancement of a political cause still seems pretty serious to me.
President Johnson, hasn't that been done already? I can already hear the chant...
"Hey, hey, ABJ, how many kids did you make today"
Although the other President Johnson - the knobhead who was nearly impeached and would have been but for the fact the the next in line was worse - is perhaps a better parallel:
How will history judge Osborne? He told Cameron he was crazy to plan to hold a referendum. But should he have done more to stop it? Resigned?
Making local councils in the North of England bear the brunt of austerity didn't help Remain's cause.
Citation needed. And a massive non-sequitur to boot.
This paper showing a causal relationship between austerity and the Brexit vote was published in the American Economic Review (one of the top journals in Economics, they only publish the best and most careful research).
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
To try a different and maybe interesting question.
At what point in EU integration will the Austrian State Treaty be violated -
1) Already is? 2) Will be in 10 years? 3) ?
Wasn’t it superseded in 1990 when Germany reunified?
Nope. The 1990 Treaty basically had Germany saying we are cool with that and existing borders.
You could make a case that the EU is currently in breach of... drum roll... international law...
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
Might be serious if it were possible to take it seriously but it is so plainly bonkers it wil be laughed out of court, literally.
Wasting court time with frivilous or nonsensical petitions for the advancement of a political cause still seems pretty serious to me.
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
Might be serious if it were possible to take it seriously but it is so plainly bonkers it wil be laughed out of court, literally.
Wasting court time with frivilous or nonsensical petitions for the advancement of a political cause still seems pretty serious to me.
Doesn't the phrase 'vexatious litigant' become relevant at this point.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
I can't help thinking that at least some in the ERG and the DUP are not going to be very pleased about today's WA news. We now - and definitively - have an internal UK customs border in the Irish Sea and a part of the UK subject to the continued jurisdiction of the CJEU. Of course, for non-loons and yoons it is very good news as it means the UK has avoided becoming a pariah state. But such a development seemed to be what many on the more extreme fringes of Brexitania were after. I wonder how they will react.
Indeed, although it's only good news relatively speaking. It's still a disaster which was completely avoidable. What makes it particularly galling is that, by a particularly successful piece of British diplomacy, Theresa May had managed to get the EU to agree to an alternative which was miles better for us, and which for once would have given us some of those 'cards' which the Brexiteers wrongly tell us we hold. Under her NI protocol, all of the time pressure would have been on the EU to do a deal, since if they didn't, we'd get the ultimate cherry-pick of full access to the Single Market without all of the obligations. We'd be sitting pretty, buffing our nails, while the EU would have been the ones anxious to finalise the trade deal.
So much voluntarily thrown away.
I agree with much of that but to be clear it was membership of the customs union not full access to the single market.
In other words tariffs couldn't be charged from a customs perspective but goods could have been halted or inspected for other regulatory reasons.
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.
He doesn't look up in arms to me, he's laughing at the double standards. If I laugh at a Jimmy Carr sketch it doesn't mean I'm up in arms.
As for my position: She's a hypocrite, I've never liked her as a journalist, but I couldn't care less what she has done. Nothing that has come out has changed my opinion on her at all and I'm not surprised she's a hypocrite.
People metaphorically up in arms about hypocrisy - as you two clearly are here with Burley - rarely use the actual words "metaphorically up in arms" because it's not cool to look like you're too bothered. So what they tend to say is they are merely "laughing at the double standards". Bit silly, but it's fine because it's obvious to the likes of me what is meant.
So, Burley = hypocrite. And Cummings = hypocrite too (in spades) with his Lockdown breaches and therefore for you to avoid loss of integrity you need to have said so at the time. Did you?
She's not a hypocrite for breaching the rules. Breaking rules doesn't make you a hypocrite it makes you a rule breaker.
She's a hypocrite for breaking the rules after showing zero tolerance to those like Cummings who broke them before her. As far as I'm aware Cummings never spent week ranting about others breaking the rules and calling for them to be fired from their jobs before he was outed for doing what he did.
My opinion has always been that everyone breaks rules from time to time and people should use their own judgement and do their best. That I don't especially care if a rule is broken from time to time. To me that applies equally to Burley and Cummings. I think firing someone for something as meaningless as this would be a gross overreaction - the same as I would say for Cummings or Patel etc.
So I'm being consistent. Thank you.
This is far from satisfactory. We already agree on Burley's hypocrisy so all of that bit was gratuitous. But thank you anyway. Now to the heart of the matter -
In order to be acquitted of the charge (and consequent loss of integrity) you need to either (i) say here and now to me and the rest of the Board that Dominic Cummings was also iyo a hypocrite or (ii) make the challenging case that it is NOT an act of rank hypocrisy for a person to break the high profile rules that they themselves have been instrumental in very recently creating.
You remain in the dock, pending.
(ii) is what I said at the time though wasn't it, so why do you want me to repeat it?
I said at the time it was understandable to break the guidelines if you think you have a reason to need to do so and that was the same for everyone. I say the same today. Nothing has changed.
Ok. So you can neither bring yourself to say that it's an act of hypocrisy for somebody to flout the rules they themselves created, nor can you make any non-risible case for why it is not.
It's a shame. You are CONVICTED and have lost your integrity.
So that's 6 people now. 4 plus you and Felix.
I can and did make a non risible case. We are all rule breakers, every single one of us. Myself included.
I am happy to accept and admit to myself that I break rules too sometimes so I would be a hypocrite if I lost my mind about others doing so too. I don't want to be a hypocrite or judge others harsher than I judge myself so I'm not doing so.
I will thus show tolerance to others and judge issues on their merit rather than being intolerant closed minded hypocrite.
If it were "non risible" nobody would be laughing. But they are. Can't you hear them? No, sorry, case closed. Take it on the chin and make a start on the road back to redemption. If all goes well that could happen as soon as tomorrow afternoon.
I couldn't care less. The same people were saying I was wrong about six months ago. Nothing has changed.
I am being consistent now with what I said then. Entirely consistent. I don't care what others think, if you are accusing ME of hypocrisy then you need to contrast what I am saying NOW versus what I was saying THEN. Not others, me.
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
Might be serious if it were possible to take it seriously but it is so plainly bonkers it wil be laughed out of court, literally.
Wasting court time with frivilous or nonsensical petitions for the advancement of a political cause still seems pretty serious to me.
It seems like practically a hostile act from one state to another, the sort of thing that would cause a diplomatic incident if they weren't in a federation together. 'We don't like the result and it looks unlikely, so it must be illegal, and here's some half baked theories as to how it could have been' seems a weak case, to put it mildly.
Who would have thought Texas would launch the most egregious attack on States' rights in the history of the United States?
Might be serious if it were possible to take it seriously but it is so plainly bonkers it wil be laughed out of court, literally.
Wasting court time with frivilous or nonsensical petitions for the advancement of a political cause still seems pretty serious to me.
Doesn't the phrase 'vexatious litigant' become relevant at this point.
I keep thinking that. Not sure why it isn't. Maybe for the same reason the media have for so long failed to describe Donald Trump's lies as lies.
This site (heavily republican) is very unrepresentative of public opinion.
Really? I would have said with the honourable exception of MrEd and the rather less honourable exception of contrarian, this site was solidly Democratic.
One day the DUP is going to realise that the Johnson government holds it in total contempt and sees its MPs as nothing more than useful idiots. It would take a heart of stone not to feel a tinge of pity for these Trump-loving fundamentalists. I guess that's what I have.
My best guess for a compromise is a can-kick/fudge - i.e. we agree regression governance on LPF clauses for 10 years only subject to review of scope/applicability of the whole FTA at that stage and bilateral UK-EU arbitration for piss-taking in the meantime. So it gives some medium-term stability and surety to the EU of a LPF but also isn't "permanent" either.
The EU has to move on fish though. We aren't accepting 18% only over 10 years. They know that.
Yep. Something like this. Fish and FOM are the "wins". Stay aligned on most other things. Serious divergence someday over the rainbow.
I don't think aligned is an issue. It's not about customs or regulatory alignemnt in goods and services. It's about a basic floor.
We already exceed EU environmental, social, welfare and labour standards in most areas so i can only imagine LPF is an issue at the margins and with regression governance and perhaps some sleight of hand potential with state aid.
Comments
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
It's a shame. You are CONVICTED and have lost your integrity.
That's 6 people now. 4 plus you and Felix.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1336334467980349451?s=20
I am happy to accept and admit to myself that I break rules too sometimes so I would be a hypocrite if I lost my mind about others doing so too. I don't want to be a hypocrite or judge others harsher than I judge myself so I'm not doing so.
I will thus show tolerance to others and judge issues on their merit rather than being intolerant closed minded hypocrite.
https://twitter.com/TedTatos/status/1336349547421831173
https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1336354612052373507
So much voluntarily thrown away.
10EUR or 1%, whichever is higher.
I suppose it depends on who does the distribution.
You might be right though, they might just claim to be based in NI. They directed CDs through the Channel Islands for long enough...
Explains a lot of your posts on here.
Oh and that monster under the bed? Not there. Honest.
Cummings should obviously have been sacked for so blatantly breaking the rules he helped make, refusing to apologise, and coming up with excuses that insulted almost everyone's intelligence. If you can't see that then there's really no hope for you.
This is all very unbecoming.
You're acting like an antivax, lockdown sceptic who denies that COVID even exists. If you deny hard enough that COVID exists then it's not possible to get you to accept that there's a reason for a lockdown or a reason for vaccinations.
Until you accept the simple truth that a new agreement was reached today that didn't exist before it isn't possible to discuss why it was reached.
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1336365067789602817?s=20
That's why you should always put the footnote reference after the full stop and not before it. Or someone might think you're talking bollox.
Ironically it's because most of the councils that lost money were Labour Councils at the time many of those councils now have Tory or NoC council leadership and Tory MPs
I don't think he should be sacked. I don't say Burley should either. I don't believe in sacking everyone who makes a mistake or upsets a pitchfork wielding mob of vigilantes demanding blood sacrifice.
You are still yet to provide evidence that the IMB led to an agreement being reached.
We are slightly becoming like the Palestinians who, according to Abba Eban, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity in their negotiations with Israel/the US.
So Fuck off with your 1 in a Quadrillion bullshit you tosser.
The latter is a technical term used by Statisticians
As I said, you thinking that being a member of the EU as a sovereign nation was akin to being a slave speaks volumes about you and puts all your posts into context.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1336353763418906639?s=20
Odds on a UK GE before 2025 would be a one billion to one according to him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/07/remainers-britain-soft-brexit
Decided to make it cash, as suggsted by others, and a single lump sum up front, not monthly, so they can buy stuff now while they still can.
Hmmmmmmm....
"sacking everyone who makes a mistake or upsets a pitchfork wielding mob of vigilantes demanding blood sacrifice."
In your ridiculous words.
It's simply common sense.
Otherwise the government is either saying:
Here are some really important rules to reduce a deadly epidemic but you don't need to follow them.
Or:
Here are the rules for you, but they don't apply to us.
Even Rita Ora had the sense to apologise.
And if a brass plaque appears in three months time, and a flag in six, the circus will (please) have moved on.
At what point in EU integration will the Austrian State Treaty be violated -
1) Already is?
2) Will be in 10 years?
3) ?
"Hey, hey, ABJ, how many kids did you make today"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson
Concept will blow BoJo's mind.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?fbclid=IwAR3JH9JR0KMqDnySUojv_zUfeBYaQhsJXe-vD8xeA8IWGeE9GS8oSinegRk&id=10.1257/aer.20181164
https://europost.eu/en/a/view/us-reaches-election-safe-harbour-deadline-to-ensure-results-31859
Somebody should let Betfair know so that they can terminate the activities of the moneylaunderers using their remaining open Presidential markets.
You could make a case that the EU is currently in breach of... drum roll... international law...
https://twitter.com/INEOSGrenadier/status/1336357901993193475?s=20
If you had, it would have been far harder for the headbangers to repeatedly vote to reject it.
In other words tariffs couldn't be charged from a customs perspective but goods could have been halted or inspected for other regulatory reasons.
I am being consistent now with what I said then. Entirely consistent. I don't care what others think, if you are accusing ME of hypocrisy then you need to contrast what I am saying NOW versus what I was saying THEN. Not others, me.
Wilson is an imbecile and the DUP get exactly what they deserve for first backing Brexit and then refusing to support Mays deal .
We already exceed EU environmental, social, welfare and labour standards in most areas so i can only imagine LPF is an issue at the margins and with regression governance and perhaps some sleight of hand potential with state aid.