Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Depends upon how you define LPF I suspect.
An agreement of non-regression on pre existing standards as the UK has offered would probably be popular.
That the UK should change its laws in future to match EU laws without us having a say? Probably less popular.
Boris Johnson will chair this afternoon's UK daily press briefing at Downing Street, expected to start at 17.00 BST.
The prime minister will be joined in No 10 by Professor Chris Whitty, England's chief medical officer and Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK government's chief scientific adviser.
How many questions on Big Dom are we going to get today?
Much trickier would be a question on the mass social distancing disobedience at today's London protests.
One law for Dom......another for people who hate Dom....and yet another law for the rest of us.
Coventry council has been subject to an extreme amount of frivolous and vexatious litigation by the owners of Coventry City football club, SISU. I'm not sure how much good it's achieved except adding to the council taxpayers tab there or highly likely putting additional pressure on adult social care.
That really is a scandal. A minor one given everything that's going on. But nonetheless.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
While I can believe that only 15% of WW2 US military fired their weapons, I find the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph difficult to accept. While, as earlier, my knowledge of history is sketchy, my reading suggests that humans, when reasonably motivated do not find it at all difficult to kill others of their species.
Killing becomes second nature in time, but in order to get a military recruit to kill on order, they do need to be brutalised and reconstructed.
This is what basic training is for, and shouting drill instructors etc.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It is my concern, because from the pictures I have seen it really doesn't take much to to persuade people to loot fifth avenue shops and shoot black ex-police officers trying to protect black-owned businesses.
So, your solution to some people behaving badly is to make another set of people immune from the consequences of their actions.
I'm not seeing the connection.
I'm not offering a solution. I am merely questioning your solution. A solution I fear is that is more dangerous that the situation we have now, for law abiding blacks and whites alike.
The problem is that people behave badly when their actions have no consequence. You see that with looting, when people feel they are unlikely to get caught. And you see that when police departments have no economic incentive to weed out those likely to commit brutality. (And you see that with grooming gangs.)
If you shield entities from the conseuquences of their actions, you see bad behaviour.
Now, there may need to be a way to stop frivilous lawsuits. But that is a seperate issue.
A question - Who here, would want Crown Immunity to apply to the NHS? i.e. you can sue for anything.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Well, quite. No public appetite here for "Singapore on Thames". And I don't think Johnson will be going down that route. I think we'll end up with Soft Brexit.
I think we will end up with a Hard Brexit or no deal in the intermediate term. I used to think we would go to Soft Brexit and still think we are going to end up there eventually. Cutting off your nose to spite your face gets painful after a while.
The key thing to understand about Leavers is that they think Brexit is a Good Thing. Logically they want it to be harder, faster and there to be more of it. Remainers, who are more evidence driven and know for a fact that Brexit will be highly damaging, don't get this key point. Remainers look to limit the damage; Leavers don't think there is damage to limit. That's the dividing line between the two camps. You can be sure that Johnson and Cummings think this way too and act accordingly.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
There's a rather elegant solution most of the rest of the world has for that problem.
He has to know no one would believe he coincidentally decided to inspect it at that time, he just gets pleasure from bullshitting. It has always worked for him up to now.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
There's a rather elegant solution most of the rest of the world has for that problem.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
Parts of America are a battlefield, aren't they? I saw a clip of one Minnesota officer complaining about the wide variety of high performance weaponry available to career criminals in America. Men who, according to him simply do not care who they shoot.
There's a rather elegant solution most of the rest of the world has for that problem.
Good God, that's commie talk! If the good folks of the USA couldn't buy assault weapons, the heavily armed state would be marching down main street with impunity and brutalising the citizenry indiscriminately.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
Oh dear Scott must be livid about Hong Kong citizens over here. Only white faced European immigration pleases him.
It's a fair question to ask about infastructure but let's be honest the number will end up being in the hundreds of thousands worst case scenario rather than 3 million.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
I think that is generally a good description but it is likely far worse than that for the UK.
Our courts will be amongst the very few in the world that will uphold WTO rules against the "home" nations interests.
So UK companies will have to follow the rules or be compelled to by our courts. Competitor companies from powerful countries, including US, China, EU block, Russia, Brazil (i.e nearly all our trade) will ignore the rules for UK trade with impunity.
He has to know no one would believe he coincidentally decided to inspect it at that time, he just gets pleasure from bullshitting. It has always worked for him up to now.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
I think that is generally a good description but it is likely far worse than that for the UK.
Our courts will be amongst the very few in the world that will uphold WTO rules against the "home" nations interests.
So UK companies will have to follow the rules or be compelled to by our courts. Competitor companies from powerful countries, including US, China, EU block, Russia, Brazil (i.e nearly all our trade) will ignore the rules for UK trade with impunity.
Ah yes good old gold plating to chuck into the pot too.
He has to know no one would believe he coincidentally decided to inspect it at that time, he just gets pleasure from bullshitting. It has always worked for him up to now.
Populist politicians seem to love checking things at the moment.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
Even before it's current enfeebled state a lot of countries just ignored the rulings as they aren't that enforceable.
WTO rules sound nice because the word rules sounds nice. Reality will be a nasty surprise for people.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
I was told by a friend at Imperial that the reason that quarantine on entry was being introduced was that in the track-and-trace environment, the case numbers are low enough and trackable for arrivals to make a significant difference.
Yes, that makes good sense, but what doesn't make sense is to make it a blanket measure, applicable to people coming from countries with much lower infection rates than we have.
The problem with that is people from countries with high infection rates can transit through countries with low infection rates - if the latter don't have controls on transit passengers (most don't) then you get cases. Greece has suspended flights from Doha because an aircraft from there arrived with Civid-Positive pax who had transferred from flights from Pakistan, Japan and Australia.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
While I can believe that only 15% of WW2 US military fired their weapons, I find the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph difficult to accept. While, as earlier, my knowledge of history is sketchy, my reading suggests that humans, when reasonably motivated do not find it at all difficult to kill others of their species.
Dunno, I think I can accept it. There was a thing on Dunkirk a week ago based mainly on interviews with veterans. One old guy spoke quite movingly about the first time he killed a man and the awful realisation that swept over him as it dawned on him what he'd done.
Of course troops in long periods of combat become inured to it, and seeing their comrades killed also hardens their hearts. The problem appears to be that many ex forces US police have already been hardened by these processes including deliberate desensitizing, and then hit the streets.
In any case a lot of US military even in the army never saw an enemy to fire at - USAF ground crew, training and supply staff, and so on, but also some frontline people.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
Even before it's current enfeebled state a lot of countries just ignored the rulings as they aren't that enforceable.
WTO rules sound nice because the word rules sounds nice. Reality will be a nasty surprise for people.
He long before the UK wants to leave the WTO ? Perhaps it could set up its own trade body where it’s the only member !
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
Do you believing that shielding any entity from the legal consequences of their actions is a good thing?
Economic actors respond to incentives. That's why we have the legal system. It punishes actors for not behaving correctly. If you shield an economic actor from the consequences of its actions, it has consequences.
Under your proposals the entity would not even need to be guilty of anything to cease to function. It would simply need to be hit with a tsunami of claims, many of which would be opportunistic. And America being American you could pretty much guarantee these would be forthcoming.
Your proposals are a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy pretty quickly at that.
Not only that, but even if your concerns were valid (which they are not), they could easily be solved by a few safeguards:
1. People (and lawyers) who bring frivilous lawsuits would be responsible for the police department's costs.
2. Maximum claims amounts could be strictly limited.
3. On these cases, lawyers could only bill hourly rates, not take a % of any payout.
There are a million safeguards you could put in place, if that was your real concern.
It is my concern, because from the pictures I have seen it really doesn't take much to to persuade people to loot fifth avenue shops and shoot black ex-police officers trying to protect black-owned businesses.
So, your solution to some people behaving badly is to make another set of people immune from the consequences of their actions.
I'm not seeing the connection.
I'm not offering a solution. I am merely questioning your solution. A solution I fear is that is more dangerous that the situation we have now, for law abiding blacks and whites alike.
The problem is that people behave badly when their actions have no consequence. You see that with looting, when people feel they are unlikely to get caught. And you see that when police departments have no economic incentive to weed out those likely to commit brutality. (And you see that with grooming gangs.)
If you shield entities from the conseuquences of their actions, you see bad behaviour.
Now, there may need to be a way to stop frivilous lawsuits. But that is a seperate issue.
A question - Who here, would want Crown Immunity to apply to the NHS? i.e. you can sue for anything.
I think you shouldnt be able to sue the NHS in the courts but in turn would require:
A suitable compensation system to be in place including independent arbiters Introduce working practices from the aviation sector around honesty in identifying mistakes to improve future safety.
That combination is better for the country as a whole.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
Even before it's current enfeebled state a lot of countries just ignored the rulings as they aren't that enforceable.
WTO rules sound nice because the word rules sounds nice. Reality will be a nasty surprise for people.
He long before the UK wants to leave the WTO ? Perhaps it could set up its own trade body where it’s the only member !
The way to leave the WTO is to do trade deals! Was quite popular with a certain party under Thatcher.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
While I can believe that only 15% of WW2 US military fired their weapons, I find the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph difficult to accept. While, as earlier, my knowledge of history is sketchy, my reading suggests that humans, when reasonably motivated do not find it at all difficult to kill others of their species.
Dunno, I think I can accept it. There was a thing on Dunkirk a week ago based mainly on interviews with veterans. One old guy spoke quite movingly about the first time he killed a man and the awful realisation that swept over him as it dawned on him what he'd done.
Of course troops in long periods of combat become inured to it, and seeing their comrades killed also hardens their hearts. The problem appears to be that many ex forces US police have already been hardened by these processes including deliberate desensitizing, and then hit the streets.
Sounds about right to me, too. There are a few individuals who will take to killing readily, but most require indoctrination. There's probably a similarly small proportion who will actively resist indoctrination.
If you look at the history of genocides, a similar pattern emerges.
He has to know no one would believe he coincidentally decided to inspect it at that time, he just gets pleasure from bullshitting. It has always worked for him up to now.
The Cummings trip to Durham argument..
Lol! Yes, there are already some serious contenders for this year's International Feeble Excuse Award.
I’m afraid I simply cannot get my head around the public health mental gymnastics of this policy [Priti Patel's announcement on the quarantine scheme].
If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the outbreak?
And if it is a contingency measure against a second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?
Surely the answer lies in the government’s test-and-trace system, rather than unnecessary economic isolation.
Oh dear Scott must be livid about Hong Kong citizens over here. Only white faced European immigration pleases him.
It's a fair question to ask about infastructure but let's be honest the number will end up being in the hundreds of thousands worst case scenario rather than 3 million.
More than one progressive acquaintance has latched onto this as racist. Yes, it is racist to give UK residency to HK citizens. Why you ask?
- "The Tories are trying to import voters, not proper immigrants*" - "The Tories are trying to suppress real immigration" - "The Tories are trying to suppress immigration of Muslims"
*On questioning, this is apparently a NoTrueScotsman* issue - an immigrant who votes Tory isn't really an immigrant.
WTO rules are - due to the enfeebled state of the WTO... biggest country/bloc wins the de facto argument. When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts. You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
Even before it's current enfeebled state a lot of countries just ignored the rulings as they aren't that enforceable.
WTO rules sound nice because the word rules sounds nice. Reality will be a nasty surprise for people.
The big problem with WTO and the type of governance that the UK wants for its FTA with the EU is that remedy can only be retrospective for injury already inflicted and where the remedy can also damage the party imposing it. The EU system of preventative control needs some kind of legal structure that in practice involves the ECJ.
More evidence is starting to emerge of infections related to Cheltenham and Anfield. Along with an interesting comment from Ferguson.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/we-were-packed-like-sardines-evidence-grows-of-mass-event-dangers-early-in-pandemic ...Prof Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College and a leading Sage scientist before he stepped down on 5 May for breaching the lockdown, told the Guardian he had informed the government well before March that under the “mitigation” policy they were planning, about 250,000 people would die. Asked to confirm if that was true, both Downing Street and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) declined to comment....
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Well, quite. No public appetite here for "Singapore on Thames". And I don't think Johnson will be going down that route. I think we'll end up with Soft Brexit.
More evidence is starting to emerge of infections related to Cheltenham and Anfield. Along with an interesting comment from Ferguson.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/we-were-packed-like-sardines-evidence-grows-of-mass-event-dangers-early-in-pandemic ...Prof Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College and a leading Sage scientist before he stepped down on 5 May for breaching the lockdown, told the Guardian he had informed the government well before March that under the “mitigation” policy they were planning, about 250,000 people would die. Asked to confirm if that was true, both Downing Street and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) declined to comment....
We'd better hope lots down in London today have cross immunity from a corona common cold in their system recently.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
SM without FM would be the ultimate cherry picking as far as the EU is concerned. Let alone Britain, you think Europe would agree to that?
The opening words of the preamble to the SM are (something along the lines of) "the free movement of goods, capital and labour". So, I'd go for "no".
Access not membership, though, and for a fee. Perhaps it can't fly but I don't see why not.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
The costs would just get passed on to the taxpayer.
I would rather see police officers made criminally liable for failure to prevent crimes committed by their colleagues.
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
SM without FM would be the ultimate cherry picking as far as the EU is concerned. Let alone Britain, you think Europe would agree to that?
The opening words of the preamble to the SM are (something along the lines of) "the free movement of goods, capital and labour". So, I'd go for "no".
Access not membership, though, and for a fee. Perhaps it can't fly but I don't see why not.
It won't fly as labour (immigration) is going to be the sticking point due to our inability to understand that it's people moving here for work nothing else...
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Well, quite. No public appetite here for "Singapore on Thames". And I don't think Johnson will be going down that route. I think we'll end up with Soft Brexit.
The biggest single thing that the US could do to improve the behaviour of their police forces is to allow police departments and municipalities to be sued.
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company sold a drug that they knew caused - say - birth defects. But imagine that people affected couldn't sue the pharmaceutical company, only the researchers. The pharma company would have no interest in weeding out drugs that could kill people because, hey, if that happened they didn't get sued, some scientist (with no money) would.
If having a racist or brutal cop cost a police department money (lots, thereof), then they would have an economic interest in weeding out bad apples. Instead, if someone behaves poorly, well it looks bad... but there are no actual financial consequences.
Congress needs to change the law. Police departments need to be on the hook for their employees, or they will never be incentivized to change their behaviour.
Fully agreed, Robert. But that is not the only thing that needs to be fixed with policing in this country, particularly when it comes to the number of citizens killed by the police.
The journalist who lost her sight in one eye from a police rubber bullet deliberately aimed at her made an interesting point, particularly concerning the militarization of policing in the US, and the employment of many former members of the Armed Services.
From her article, she points out that in WW2 only 15% of US military fired their weapons in anger, and of those, many fired to deliberately miss. Her point - as humans we innately find it very difficult to take another human's life in cold blood. Which is why the US military changes its training post WW2 in order to improving the fighting efficiency of its troops by desensitizing its recruits to killing, thereby increasing dramatically the number willing to kill in battle.
It is these desensitized individuals, much more willing to kill, that many US police departments are recruiting to police its communities. And they are putting them in body armor, with assault rifles and, sometimes, in armored vehicles - further enhancing the officer's identification of the situation with the battlefield, rather than the community.
I just wonder what would stop every police department in America getting bankrupted by compensation claims and/or legal fees attached thereto.
While I can believe that only 15% of WW2 US military fired their weapons, I find the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph difficult to accept. While, as earlier, my knowledge of history is sketchy, my reading suggests that humans, when reasonably motivated do not find it at all difficult to kill others of their species.
Killing becomes second nature in time, but in order to get a military recruit to kill on order, they do need to be brutalised and reconstructed.
This is what basic training is for, and shouting drill instructors etc.
From what I've read, it's not that hard at all to get people to participate in genocide.
And groups like the Mongols seem to have had no qualms at all about killing large numbers of people intimately.
It's hardly the most significant impact of the US protests, but it's completely stopped any momentum the move to ditch Biden might have had left. Betfair rightly have him at 1/20 to be nominated now.
Haven't read the thread, so apologies if others have made the point already, but this madness of huge crowds over Hyde Park, if nothing else, will act as a guide to whether lockdown is necessary anymore.
We have been watching Michael Portillo's Empire programme this afternoon, the episode about South Africa, and looked at twitter afterwards in complete amazement at the scenes. I said to my missus "I bet some ***t tries to blame Dominic Cummings for this". Have they?
Can we take a moment to recognise that in the last thread, @HYUFD suggested that if Nissan closed and it negatively affected the North East, then that is their own fault for voting for Brexit and for the Conservatives?
Can we just recognise this special moment please.
I did. I invited him to come and knock doors up here with a blue rosette on so that he can explain the triumph of the will to the local newly impoverished and unemployed.
The vast majority of Tory voters want to end the transition period and leave the single market and end free movement and leave the customs union as the Tories manifesto promised. If that is not delivered many if not most of them will switch back to the Brexit Party.
If voters in the North East voted Leave in 2016 and Tory in 2019 they knew what they were voting for, the Tories should have no apologies in delivering it
"You voted to make yourself unemployed. Can I count on your support again"?
yeah, that'll work
Still better than coming 3rd behind the Brexit Party if the transition period is extended indefinitely
Are you suggesting a Nigel Farage Premiership with Starmer still LOTO?
I am suggesting never mind possibly losing the next general election, if the Tories extend indefinitely they face a Canada 1993 style wipe out at the next general election and being overtaken by the Brexit Party as the Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories then
Ending Free Movement is the thing. So long as they do that as promised on 1st Jan 2021 Brexit will be "Done" as regards most Leavers - particularly the Red Wallers to whom they owe their landslide majority. Those voters would not know a Single Market or a Customs Union if they tripped over one.
Correct but they will be blaming Boris if they lose their jobs next year.
Losing them now and people may blame Covid, loss them after Brexit is confirmed and Boris will start to really carry the blame.
Yep, for sure.
That's why I predict a Deal is done this year that (i) ends FM and (ii) retains full SM access for a fee.
To take effect 1st Jan 2021.
This Interim 'SM without FM' Deal to continue in force until the Final Deal is negotiated in due course (target date set for 1st Jan 2022 probably). Final Deal likely to be close alignment.
I'm pretty sure the SM access will require LPF, otherwise the risks of the UK dumping into the SM remain.
Of course access (at a cost, LPF, fees etc.) but not membership should remove FM from the equation.
I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying that the UK will have to junk nearly everything it is currently asking for now to essentially end up exactly where it is already but with no MEPs and no freedom of movement.
Yes, we will have to accept the LPF. You may say it leaves us with most of the costs of membership without many of the benefits - and you'd be right - but we would have regained control of our borders and that (imo) will be enough to head off any big rebellion from Leave Nation. In particular those Red Wallers - the new Tory base - will be happy enough. Brexit will have been done. They don't particularly want a ton of job losses on top just for the purity of WTO terms and no ECJ and the ability to do trade deals with countries on the other side of the world. It's only the Mogg types who give a flying fuck about all that stuff.
How unpopular in the real world is the LPF?
Don't the majority of people want comparable standards of environmental, social and employment protections as mainland Europe?
Well, quite. No public appetite here for "Singapore on Thames". And I don't think Johnson will be going down that route. I think we'll end up with Soft Brexit.
I think we will end up with a Hard Brexit or no deal in the intermediate term. I used to think we would go to Soft Brexit and still think we are going to end up there eventually. Cutting off your nose to spite your face gets painful after a while.
The key thing to understand about Leavers is that they think Brexit is a Good Thing. Logically they want it to be harder, faster and there to be more of it. Remainers, who are more evidence driven and know for a fact that Brexit will be highly damaging, don't get this key point. Remainers look to limit the damage; Leavers don't think there is damage to limit. That's the dividing line between the two camps. You can be sure that Johnson and Cummings think this way too and act accordingly.
I think Free Movement is the biggie. With that gone, I don't think Johnson would suffer much Leaver blowback for maintaining close alignment. Conversely I think he would be taking a serious political risk if he tosses a WTO Brexit onto the virus wreckage and maximizes economic pain and job losses. That's my rationale for what I'm predicting will happen. A deal this year which ends FM but keeps everything much the same (for a fee) and sets a new extended deadline for the next iteration.
You are right, it has, except now it is why did Bozo keep him? It is because he is crap. Keep up please! You have got to stop apologising for him Big G, you know he is hopeless too!
My suspicion is growing that it was actually Boris who leaked the details of the Cummings shenanigans to the press - it was the only way a bullied and terrorized Boris could rid himself of his tormentor. Of course, it backfired when Cummings refused to budge. Boris has looked haunted ever since.
"Senior Tory"? Has the member for Dunny-on-the-Wold been mouthing off again?
There aren't many senior Tories left. Cummings got Bozo to remove the whip from most. There are just middleweights lightweights and bantam weights left now.
Haven't read the thread, so apologies if others have made the point already, but this madness of huge crowds over Hyde Park, if nothing else, will act as a guide to whether lockdown is necessary anymore.
We have been watching Michael Portillo's Empire programme this afternoon, the episode about South Africa, and looked at twitter afterwards in complete amazement at the scenes. I said to my missus "I bet some ***t tries to blame Dominic Cummings for this". Have they?
I'm hopeful that activity outside has a very low chance of spread, but the crowds and the chanting will be a strict test of that.
It doesn't say much about the risk of spread indoors, though.
There seems clear evidence his breathing capacity has been effected
Spotted this at PMQs today.
Or possibly when he is under pressure he breaths like other obese people do.
He seems to have lost weight but weight is a factor in lung capacity
He has a lot to lose -not criticising him for it btw, I know how hard it is, but he was 17 stone apparently, which is seriously obese for a man that is only 5'9''
I have been a strong critic of Boris recently but when he puts in a good performance I will say so
Indeed you need to see the number of my posts that have praised Starmer recently
Starmer got Johnson to concede that shielded MPs will get a proxy vote (not just pairing) in contradiction to Rees-Mogg line yesterday. That was a win for Starmer.
Overall I thought it was a bit uninspiring on both sides. I'd expected a better quality joust. There is no doubt that Starmer looks more prime ministerial than Johnson!
He may but if it comes over to the public he is playing politics with this pandemic he will not win over converts
Also I do not expect him to be against Boris in 2024
I agree on your last point.
Johnson is not well and he's not enjoying this one little bit. Everywhere he looks is a problem - Covid, Brexit, Trump. He can't be cheerful and positive which is his default position. And he has a young baby at home. I have money on him retiring later this year. Followed by Gove or Hunt.
For the first time I'm really beginning to think he won't make 2024.
There's another thing. His popularity is plummeting: Reuters polling said that in fifty years they had never seen such a sudden and dramatic fall in approval ratings (sorry bluestblue). Whereas Cummings couldn't care, Johnson really, really cares about whether he is liked. It's one of the reasons he can't stand scrutiny. The other being that lying courses through his veins and he hates being exposed.
Johnson will hate it that the scales are tumbling from people's eyes. Without this virus he would have been hoping to carry on with his bumbling obfuscation blather and blah-blah. Now he's in the spotlight, although he is trying his best to step away from tripping the light fantastic.
The man's been laid bare: like a jhator carcass on which the vultures are settling to feast.
The Conservatives are still leading Mr. Boring's party very comfortably, they have a virtually unassailable position in Parliament, and Boris has every chance of being Prime Minister for a decade if he runs another good campaign next time.
Sorry, Mysticrose - not everyone turns tail and runs at the slightest whiff of grapeshot.
He’s struggling so badly after just months that it is almost impossible to see him lasting out ten years.
You are right, it has, except now it is why did Bozo keep him? It is because he is crap. Keep up please! You have got to stop apologising for him Big G, you know he is hopeless too!
My comments on Boris are fair and critical but I take no instructions from anyone to 'keep up please'
Haven't read the thread, so apologies if others have made the point already, but this madness of huge crowds over Hyde Park, if nothing else, will act as a guide to whether lockdown is necessary anymore.
We have been watching Michael Portillo's Empire programme this afternoon, the episode about South Africa, and looked at twitter afterwards in complete amazement at the scenes. I said to my missus "I bet some ***t tries to blame Dominic Cummings for this". Have they?
I'm hopeful that activity outside has a very low chance of spread, but the crowds and the chanting will be a strict test of that.
It doesn't say much about the risk of spread indoors, though.
There will be some Olympic level contortions from those who have been saying those breaking lockdown are endangering other peoples lives
The lack of social safety net in the US has many things wrong with it. But one of the few benefits is that the economy is way more responsive and adaptive as a result than comparable European economies.
I do not predict a rapid recovery for NYC's economy, but I do predict it will be quicker than the UK's or the EU's economic recovery.
Comments
An agreement of non-regression on pre existing standards as the UK has offered would probably be popular.
That the UK should change its laws in future to match EU laws without us having a say? Probably less popular.
One law for Dom......another for people who hate Dom....and yet another law for the rest of us.
When they're of comparable size, e.g. China vs EU vs USA there's often a stalemate of sorts.
You might not like it but I'm going to take some convincing it's not the reality.
This is what basic training is for, and shouting drill instructors etc.
The key thing to understand about Leavers is that they think Brexit is a Good Thing. Logically they want it to be harder, faster and there to be more of it. Remainers, who are more evidence driven and know for a fact that Brexit will be highly damaging, don't get this key point. Remainers look to limit the damage; Leavers don't think there is damage to limit. That's the dividing line between the two camps. You can be sure that Johnson and Cummings think this way too and act accordingly.
Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
Surgisphere, whose employees appear to include a sci-fi writer and adult content model, provided database behind Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine hydroxychloroquine studies
It's a fair question to ask about infastructure but let's be honest the number will end up being in the hundreds of thousands worst case scenario rather than 3 million.
WELSH POLL KLAXON
Surely three or four threaders tomorrow will be devoted to this momentous event?
Our courts will be amongst the very few in the world that will uphold WTO rules against the "home" nations interests.
So UK companies will have to follow the rules or be compelled to by our courts.
Competitor companies from powerful countries, including US, China, EU block, Russia, Brazil (i.e nearly all our trade) will ignore the rules for UK trade with impunity.
WTO rules sound nice because the word rules sounds nice. Reality will be a nasty surprise for people.
A suitable compensation system to be in place including independent arbiters
Introduce working practices from the aviation sector around honesty in identifying mistakes to improve future safety.
That combination is better for the country as a whole.
There are a few individuals who will take to killing readily, but most require indoctrination. There's probably a similarly small proportion who will actively resist indoctrination.
If you look at the history of genocides, a similar pattern emerges.
- "The Tories are trying to import voters, not proper immigrants*"
- "The Tories are trying to suppress real immigration"
- "The Tories are trying to suppress immigration of Muslims"
*On questioning, this is apparently a NoTrueScotsman* issue - an immigrant who votes Tory isn't really an immigrant.
https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1268190805115666435?s=20
Along with an interesting comment from Ferguson.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/we-were-packed-like-sardines-evidence-grows-of-mass-event-dangers-early-in-pandemic
...Prof Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College and a leading Sage scientist before he stepped down on 5 May for breaching the lockdown, told the Guardian he had informed the government well before March that under the “mitigation” policy they were planning, about 250,000 people would die. Asked to confirm if that was true, both Downing Street and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) declined to comment....
It will be interesting to see if this causes a real problem in the coming days
I would rather see police officers made criminally liable for failure to prevent crimes committed by their colleagues.
can the government not see this??
And groups like the Mongols seem to have had no qualms at all about killing large numbers of people intimately.
Or something.
https://twitter.com/aamnamohdin/status/1268208957610491908?s=20
Hopefully the return of rain to UK will put off the copy cats.
https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1267890952934391809?s=20
R not coming down fast, says Vallance.
You can't.
Unless you channel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1268214142495797248
We have been watching Michael Portillo's Empire programme this afternoon, the episode about South Africa, and looked at twitter afterwards in complete amazement at the scenes. I said to my missus "I bet some ***t tries to blame Dominic Cummings for this". Have they?
I saw the whole PMQs earlier I thought Starmer had smashed Johnson out of the park.
I mentioned earlier that I saw the BBC News edit immediately after and it looked like a draw.
I have just seen the BBC Coronvirus daily briefing edit of PMQs. Boris was awesome!
The BBC seem to think that demonstrating impartiality means they have to edit Johnson to look good. Why?
It doesn't say much about the risk of spread indoors, though.
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/1268215874953117696
Alert level and 5 tests are separate matters!
Can meet tests and thus ease restrictions even if Alert level remains the same.
Bingo!
I do not predict a rapid recovery for NYC's economy, but I do predict it will be quicker than the UK's or the EU's economic recovery.