Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson’s reported admiration for Trump won’t look smart if Bi

1235

Comments

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    edited September 2020

    The WA isn't a trade deal.

    Trade agreements almost invariably have exit clauses. If a trade agreement has an exit clause then it is not a restriction on sovereignty because the exit clause can be invoked.

    Plus international law is subordinate to domestic law anyway. Parliament can override international law whenever it wants, which is precisely what people are complaining about here.
    You are making distinctions between trade deals and non-trade deals that aren't distinctions under international law. International law is codified system and what you propose breaches that law.

    If a national government chooses to ignore its obligations under international law the remedies are not especially powerful, as can be seen with Germany in the 1930s. But it doesn't change the principle.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    Cheers for those replies.

    I thought the PM was a moron previously. I continue to think this.

    It's almost as if scrutinising the Withdrawal Agreement would've been a good idea.

    Those who wanted to scrutinise the Withdrawal Agreement were described as obstructionist remoaners remember. Funny that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2020

    Yes. I know. That's what they said in June. With the results expected September/October (if it worked).

    The obvious reason for the timescale to slip is that the vaccine doesn't work that well, and so it will take longer for the statistical evidence of how well it does work to emerge from the noise.

    This is disappointing news, rather than "what we always knew" or "good news, it will be ready in four months".
    No that isn't the reason the timescale slipped.

    The reason the timescale changed was that the planned Phase III trial in the UK couldn't proceed because the UK brought the virus under control so the trial was moved overseas. Which meant setting up a trial, recruiting volunteers, getting the results etc overseas.

    A Phase III trial in the UK couldn't answer if the vaccine works or not as there's not enough prevalence of virus in the UK to tell if it is working or not, hence the trials had to start in Brazil etc instead. Since the trials started in Brazil the timing has never been for Phase III results to be available by September. That says nothing about whether the vaccine works or not nor anything about statistical noise.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,724
    MaxPB said:

    Here's a free policy for Labour/Starmer - 2/3/4 day per week season tickets for the same pro-rated price as the weekly ticket. In my focus group of friends it's extremely popular. It speaks to the new age of working, it allows people to choose how many days they want to work in office and it gives part time workers (who tend to be on lower incomes) a much needed discount vs day returns.

    The only losers are the train companies but who really gives a fuck about them anyway?

    Absolutely great idea and it occurred to me only yesterday exactly the same thing.

    If people are commuting less there's no real benefit if they have to pay eg. a yearly season ticket there is just an excess cost. Having as you suggest 2/3/4 days per week would make a huge difference.

    Only problem is that, say, you were commuting 3 days a week, it's likely (haven't done the calcs) that you would pay more if you purchased those tickets separately than if you bought a full time season ticket and hence you are a captive audience for the full season ticket so why would the TOCs give a ****.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,724

    Yes of course the UK was always sovereign because we could leave whenever we wanted. That is my logic yes.

    You say that like you've scored a goal or made a great point. But I agree with you and have never said otherwise, of course the UK was always sovereign.

    No international agreements do not involve relinquishments of sovereignty, unless we were to agree something Parliament couldn't undo.
    And hence being in the EU did not relinquish our sovereignty as parliament indeed undid it.

    So what was all the fuss about?
  • It’s not possible for the UK Government to agree to something Parliament cannot undo under our legal system, so it’s pointless even discussing it.

    If Britain was always (and is) sovereign then why are you whinging about the fantastic oven-ready WA “impinging on our sovereignty”?

    The issue is not sovereignty. The issue is agreeing to something and decrying it as a fantastic deal for Britain, and then 12 months later deciding it’s actually sh*t.
    I'm not whinging about the WA impinging on our sovereignty, since the WA does not impinge on our sovereignty.

    You really need to improve your reading comprehension, you keep saying I'm whinging when I'm not. Maybe you should drop your preconceived ideas about what I think and read what I have to say instead.

    The WA isn't shit. I'm not saying it is. The WA is fine for what it was and has served its purpose. Now Parliament needs to determine what we are going to do going forwards and Parliament is supreme as it always has been and as it always should be.
  • kjh said:

    Hugh Grant was a great PM though.
    He would probably be better than the current idiot
  • Barnesian said:

    My proposal, that you haven't yet accepted, does exactly that. The UK could cancel the arrangment with notice and within the agreement, and it therefore doesn't bind successor governments.
    I have no qualms with the third part of your proposal. The second part I do and I think its redundant, unnecessary and counterproductive. But there's no problems with the third part and it doesn't need the second part.
  • I have not been on of late (CHB will be pleased) because I find the political sphere at the moment so unutterably awful, that there is little to say apart from how awful it actually is.

    The Prime Minister and the LOTO behave like fifth formers at Greyfriars School (Billy Bunter) for those who have not read about Bunter.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    TOPPING said:

    Absolutely great idea and it occurred to me only yesterday exactly the same thing.

    If people are commuting less there's no real benefit if they have to pay eg. a yearly season ticket there is just an excess cost. Having as you suggest 2/3/4 days per week would make a huge difference.

    Only problem is that, say, you were commuting 3 days a week, it's likely (haven't done the calcs) that you would pay more if you purchased those tickets separately than if you bought a full time season ticket and hence you are a captive audience for the full season ticket so why would the TOCs give a ****.
    There is a 10 single ticket Flexipass, in Scotland at least, that I was using because I wasn't going into the office every day and at least one day a week I wouldn't take the return journey. Each single ticket works out at half the day return rate. It's quite flexible but it depends how you price it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,823
    TOPPING said:

    Absolutely great idea and it occurred to me only yesterday exactly the same thing.

    If people are commuting less there's no real benefit if they have to pay eg. a yearly season ticket there is just an excess cost. Having as you suggest 2/3/4 days per week would make a huge difference.

    Only problem is that, say, you were commuting 3 days a week, it's likely (haven't done the calcs) that you would pay more if you purchased those tickets separately than if you bought a full time season ticket and hence you are a captive audience for the full season ticket so why would the TOCs give a ****.
    Yes, they wouldn't would they. Which is why it needs Ofrail or whatever the regulator is to force train companies to offer them. From my perspective it probably encourages people back onto trains who would otherwise just live with remote working to save the cash.

    If Labour pushed this policy it works be very popular IMO, there's no downsides other than a lower potential maximum revenue for train companies and as I said, no one really cares about that.
  • FF43 said:

    You are making distinctions between trade deals and non-trade deals that aren't distinctions under international law. International law is codified system and what you propose breaches that law.

    If a national government chooses to ignore its obligations under international law the remedies are not especially powerful, as can be seen with Germany in the 1930s. But it doesn't change the principle.
    "International law" is nice to have but less important than domestic law.

    Many claim that "international law" prevented the Iraq War. It still went ahead. Why didn't the courts stop the Iraq War if it broke international law? Because of course Parliament is more important than international law.

    Some countries constitutions say that domestic law must abide by international law. Ours does not. Good.
  • I have not been on of late (CHB will be pleased) because I find the political sphere at the moment so unutterably awful, that there is little to say apart from how awful it actually is.

    The Prime Minister and the LOTO behave like fifth formers at Greyfriars School (Billy Bunter) for those who have not read about Bunter.

    Its not just me then...
  • No that isn't the reason the timescale slipped.

    The reason the timescale changed was that the planned Phase III trial in the UK couldn't proceed because the UK brought the virus under control so the trial was moved overseas. Which meant setting up a trial, recruiting volunteers, getting the results etc overseas.

    A Phase III trial in the UK couldn't answer if the vaccine works or not as there's not enough prevalence of virus in the UK to tell if it is working or not, hence the trials had to start in Brazil etc instead. Since the trials started in Brazil the timing has never been for Phase III results to be available by September. That says nothing about whether the vaccine works or not nor anything about statistical noise.
    This isn't true. They already knew in June that the infection rate was not high enough in the UK for a phase 3 trial and went to Brazil and South Africa then. See

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-28-trial-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-starts-brazil

    The timescale has changed. It's bad news. We should consider if our strategy needs to change as a result.

    Instead I am told that this was always the timescale and that hints at a vaccine early next year are good news. This is self-delusion.
  • stjohn said:

    With the polls consistently bad for Trump, my view now on the POTUS election is that,

    “TRUMP CAN’T WIN BIGLY BUT HE CAN SURE LOSE BIGLY”.

    I know rcs1000 has been making this very point - though perhaps not quite as elegantly!

    I’ve just bought BIDEN ECV votes at 285 for £10 a point with SPIN. (Voided if Biden doesn’t contest the election).

    Now let’s go win it Joe!

    Yes, this looks like a bet with very little downside (say about 20 points maximum) and a helluva lot of upside. (I don't really think Joe will turn Texas but if he did the bet would pay bigly!)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,552
    edited September 2020
    MaxPB said:

    Here's a free policy for Labour/Starmer - 2/3/4 day per week season tickets for the same pro-rated price as the weekly ticket. In my focus group of friends it's extremely popular. It speaks to the new age of working, it allows people to choose how many days they want to work in office and it gives part time workers (who tend to be on lower incomes) a much needed discount vs day returns.

    The only losers are the train companies but who really gives a fuck about them anyway?

    You sound like you are turning into a right leftie in your old age ;-)

    To be fair, the thought the country is going to go back to 5 days a week in an office is for the birds. I saw an interview with the guy who owns Vanarama the other day, and he said he was initially very sceptical of remote working, but now it will be company policy for only part time in the office, regardless of COVID situation.

    He was very positive about how his employees worked, and that for him as a business it would save him loads of money on office / car parking costs.

    I wouldn't fancy owning a business that revolves around anything to do with servicing office work in a big city. When COVID is finished, those businesses aren't going to find the same demand will be there.
  • TOPPING said:

    And hence being in the EU did not relinquish our sovereignty as parliament indeed undid it.

    So what was all the fuss about?
    Because we couldn't exercise that sovereignty without leaving and we wanted to exercise it.

    What you are saying is like saying if you have money in the bank that is yours and you want to spend it then why withdraw it from the bank? Of course as long as the money remains in the bank it remains yours but if you want to spend it then the money must leave the bank.

    The fact of sovereignty was never at issue, the exercise of it was.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884

    "International law" is nice to have but less important than domestic law.

    Many claim that "international law" prevented the Iraq War. It still went ahead. Why didn't the courts stop the Iraq War if it broke international law? Because of course Parliament is more important than international law.

    Some countries constitutions say that domestic law must abide by international law. Ours does not. Good.
    Let's take the Treaty of Utrecht, which is the only legal reason why Gibraltar is British rather than Spanish. Would you say, if you were in the UK government that the Treaty of Utrecht is a nice to have or would you want Spain to abide by it?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    I'm not whinging about the WA impinging on our sovereignty, since the WA does not impinge on our sovereignty.

    You really need to improve your reading comprehension, you keep saying I'm whinging when I'm not. Maybe you should drop your preconceived ideas about what I think and read what I have to say instead.

    The WA isn't shit. I'm not saying it is. The WA is fine for what it was and has served its purpose. Now Parliament needs to determine what we are going to do going forwards and Parliament is supreme as it always has been and as it always should be.
    You deciding that the “WA has served its purpose” is exactly the laughable thing we’re discussing.

    The WA is a long-term international agreement that you, and the Government and its fans described as a brilliant deal for Britain, and now you’re saying it isn’t.

    You look stupid, and you’re making us all look stupid on the international stage.

    You may not care if we look stupid, but our future international agreements depend on us being trustworthy and we look anything but.

    You are whining. You’re whining about how the long-term deal we agreed, and described as brilliant, is no longer brilliant.

    Your lack of self-awareness is really something to behold.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,678



    Then we will sign no trade deals, as all trade deals involve some degree of relinquishment of sovereignty.

    Sounds brilliant.

    Your idealism is on the same level as a 16 year old communist.

    You're making me nostalgic with that comment!

    Personally I think the Government is doing Art of the Deal stuff - they reckon that saying we'll wreck everything unless you compromise, we don't care, enables them to make the best available deal with credibility intact and relief all round. It's a time-worn tactic which sometimes works, so long as the people doing it are focused, balanced, consistent and level-headed.

    Oh.
  • This isn't true. They already knew in June that the infection rate was not high enough in the UK for a phase 3 trial and went to Brazil and South Africa then. See

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-28-trial-oxford-covid-19-vaccine-starts-brazil

    The timescale has changed. It's bad news. We should consider if our strategy needs to change as a result.

    Instead I am told that this was always the timescale and that hints at a vaccine early next year are good news. This is self-delusion.
    Your first link was dated 16 June, the second is dated 28 June. I don't see how that's contradictory or shows bad news, can you find any link contemporaneous with the Brazil trial saying its results would be known by now?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538
    MaxPB said:

    Here's a free policy for Labour/Starmer - 2/3/4 day per week season tickets for the same pro-rated price as the weekly ticket. In my focus group of friends it's extremely popular. It speaks to the new age of working, it allows people to choose how many days they want to work in office and it gives part time workers (who tend to be on lower incomes) a much needed discount vs day returns.

    The only losers are the train companies tax payers but who really gives a fuck about them anyway?

    Fixed that for you. :)

    Of course, in this new world your idea might actually generate more business and save the tax payer money - but I'm doubtful to be honest.
  • FF43 said:

    Let's take the Treaty of Utrecht, which is the only legal reason why Gibraltar is British rather than Spanish. Would you say, if you were in the UK government that the Treaty of Utrecht is a nice to have or would you want Spain to abide by it?
    Both.

    Though if Spain decided they didn't want to abide by it then I wouldn't be going to a court in Madrid to enforce it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    Pulpstar said:

    Isn't it better to buy ECV supremacy at £5 a point (29.5 Biden over Trump) (I've done this btw) for a lower rake should one need to trade out ?
    That's my main bet.

    Bought Biden EC supremacy at 28.5 for unit stake £30.

    That's big for me.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    FF43 said:

    Let's take the Treaty of Utrecht, which is the only legal reason why Gibraltar is British rather than Spanish. Would you say, if you were in the UK government that the Treaty of Utrecht is a nice to have or would you want Spain to abide by it?
    Don’t be silly. Only silly foreigners should abide by international agreements.

    At least I think that’s the line our government is taking.
  • 🚨🚨🚨 URGENT polls showing nothing happening update 🚨🚨🚨

    USC Dornsife: B 52, T 41.5
    https://election.usc.edu/
    (This is the "traditional voting question", they seem to be slower with the "probabilistic" one)

    Lead back to where it was the day before yesterday.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538
    On season tickets, how would a three day ticket actually work? Would it be more like a carnet where you load journeys on to your smartcard?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884

    You're making me nostalgic with that comment!

    Personally I think the Government is doing Art of the Deal stuff - they reckon that saying we'll wreck everything unless you compromise, we don't care, enables them to make the best available deal with credibility intact and relief all round. It's a time-worn tactic which sometimes works, so long as the people doing it are focused, balanced, consistent and level-headed.

    Oh.
    Not sure. I think this government, and Johnson in particular, genuinely believe in Brexit delivering independence and giving them control. He is frustrated that he can't get what he wants without making long term commitments that he wouldn't ordinarily make. I don't think he understands why there is a problem and he does think EU/Barnier etc are being unreasonable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    MrEd said:

    So this has been viewed approaching 12m times:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/05/watch_black_lives_matter_protesters_riot_in_rochester_tell_restaurant_patrons_to_give_us_our_shit.html

    Biden really needs to come out with something a bit stronger than "all violence is wrong" when it comes to BLM. I'm sure it will be mentioned that he is ahead in the polls etc etc but, as @MaxPB pointed out, it is not a good look.
    But how many of those 12m views were you?
  • I'm not whinging about the WA impinging on our sovereignty, since the WA does not impinge on our sovereignty.

    You really need to improve your reading comprehension, you keep saying I'm whinging when I'm not. Maybe you should drop your preconceived ideas about what I think and read what I have to say instead.

    The WA isn't shit. I'm not saying it is. The WA is fine for what it was and has served its purpose. Now Parliament needs to determine what we are going to do going forwards and Parliament is supreme as it always has been and as it always should be.
    Yes. No-one has said Parliament is unable to cancel the WA. People have said we can't do so without breaching international law, trashing our reputation as a supporter of a rules-based world order and discouraging people from doing deals with us since they won't be able to trust we will stick to them.
  • Don’t be silly. Only silly foreigners should abide by international agreements.

    At least I think that’s the line our government is taking.
    I have said that international relations are a matter for international relations not domestic courts. I fail to see how that is unreasonable but lets take the Treaty of Utrecht as an example you agree with.

    If the Spaniards decide to violate the Treaty of Utrecht then do you think the UK should:
    1. Deal with the Spaniards on an international relations level OR
    2. Lodge a court case with a domestic Spanish court in Madrid
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,898
    edited September 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    Isn't it better to buy ECV supremacy at £5 a point (29.5 Biden over Trump) (I've done this btw) for a lower rake should one need to trade out ?
    Pulpstar. I think you are right. Good point. Had I placed your bet and held it to the end I would be £12.50 better off - whatever the outcome. But the spread on your bet is half of mine. I think!

    Too late now. Hopefully the £12.50 will be chlorinated chicken feed compared to overall winnings. 😀
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,639
    MaxPB said:

    Yes, they wouldn't would they. Which is why it needs Ofrail or whatever the regulator is to force train companies to offer them. From my perspective it probably encourages people back onto trains who would otherwise just live with remote working to save the cash.

    If Labour pushed this policy it works be very popular IMO, there's no downsides other than a lower potential maximum revenue for train companies and as I said, no one really cares about that.
    Would it be legal to do this [perhaps not always a consideration with this govt ;)]?

    I would have thought train companies would argue giving customers this significant discount contradicts the terms on which franchise agreements were made.

    I believe the franchises are currently suspended, but presumably the govt plans to start them back up again post-pandemic.

  • Yes. No-one has said Parliament is unable to cancel the WA. People have said we can't do so without breaching international law, trashing our reputation as a supporter of a rules-based world order and discouraging people from doing deals with us since they won't be able to trust we will stick to them.
    Then we're on the same page.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    I have said that international relations are a matter for international relations not domestic courts. I fail to see how that is unreasonable but lets take the Treaty of Utrecht as an example you agree with.

    If the Spaniards decide to violate the Treaty of Utrecht then do you think the UK should:
    1. Deal with the Spaniards on an international relations level OR
    2. Lodge a court case with a domestic Spanish court in Madrid
    We agreed to the provisions. If that’s not how “international relations” should work then why did we agree to it, and why did you describe it as a brilliant deal?

    You look ridiculous.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,898

    Yes, this looks like a bet with very little downside (say about 20 points maximum) and a helluva lot of upside. (I don't really think Joe will turn Texas but if he did the bet would pay bigly!)
    Peter. Glad to have your approval! I’m guessing you have done something similar? But as Pulpstar points out the supremacy bet is the better play.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884

    Both.

    Though if Spain decided they didn't want to abide by it then I wouldn't be going to a court in Madrid to enforce it.
    There is a semantic issue here. There is either a requirement for Spain to respect UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, or there isn't. It is nonsensical to make that requirement and then say it's up to the Spanish government to decide what it wants to do according to its domestic agenda.
  • We agreed to the provisions. If that’s not how “international relations” should work then why did we agree to it, and why did you describe it as a brilliant deal?

    You look ridiculous.
    I don't think I ever described it as a "brilliant" deal, I did describe is as a "better" deal.

    And I agreed with it understanding fully that if trade talks didn't go well that the UK could and should do what it is now doing. The transactional nature of the WA meant most of what we were interested in expires on 31/12/20 meaning that it is for Parliament to do what it must going forwards which is more important than the WA which has served its purpose.
  • They turned the oven off
    Will suit Johnson, who prefers his plans half-baked.
  • Your first link was dated 16 June, the second is dated 28 June. I don't see how that's contradictory or shows bad news, can you find any link contemporaneous with the Brazil trial saying its results would be known by now?
    The Brazil trial had already started on the 20th June, they would have known it was required when they provided the quotes earlier in the month. Stop being ridiculous.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,119
    edited September 2020
    Alistair said:

    Trafalgar's famed "How do you think your neighbour would vote" questions saw the result in Colorado of

    Trump 46.4
    Clinton 42.7

    Actual result

    Trump 43.3
    Clinton 48.2
    So what, I have already said Biden will hold the Clinton states including Colorado and pick up Arizona, however in Michigan and Pennsylvania Trafalgar group were correct in 2016 unlike other pollsters using their methods and may well be again.

    In Wisconsin the poll average was 7% higher for Hillary than the result too
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,045
    HYUFD said:

    Not successful, the French Prince Louis' army was beaten at the Battle of Lincoln in 1217, the French invasion fleet commanded by his wife Blanche of Castile was then also defeated at the Battle of Sandwich.

    At the Treaty of Lambeth Louis surrendered any castles he had captured and accepted he had never been a legitimate King of England and departed back to France with his tail between his legs
    He invaded the country, landed successfully, took London, took Winchester, controlled more than half of England, and was proclaimed King of England. He was here for well over a year.

    Most people wouldn't gloss over that with "No, no, we weren't successfully invaded." We were. We merely threw him out considerably later. It would be like saying that France wasn't successfully invaded in either World War, or Poland wasn't successfully invaded, because the invaders were eventually thrown out.

    You didn't know about it because your knowledge of history was too perfunctory, you reached for a simplistic strapline that wasn't true, and you cannot admit to being mistaken. Just accept you were wrong and reset the date from 1066 to 1216; it's still ages ago, after all.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,823
    tlg86 said:

    On season tickets, how would a three day ticket actually work? Would it be more like a carnet where you load journeys on to your smartcard?

    6 peak time journeys per week in a smart card and unlimited off peak travel.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited September 2020
    FF43 said:

    There is a semantic issue here. There is either a requirement for Spain to respect UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, or there isn't. It is nonsensical to make that requirement and then say it's up to the Spanish government to decide what it wants to do according to its domestic agenda.
    The reason Spain respects UK sovereignty over Gibraltar is and always has been realpolitik not law.

    The Argentinians tried to invade the Falkland Islands - did we fight them off with lawyers?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    edited September 2020

    I don't think I ever described it as a "brilliant" deal, I did describe is as a "better" deal.

    And I agreed with it understanding fully that if trade talks didn't go well that the UK could and should do what it is now doing. The transactional nature of the WA meant most of what we were interested in expires on 31/12/20 meaning that it is for Parliament to do what it must going forwards which is more important than the WA which has served its purpose.
    Yes - that’s how you justify it to yourself. But the Government is making us look like fools on the international stage, as well as making us look untrustworthy. We agreed a long-term deal in good faith and now you are happy to rip it up.

    It was a long-term international agreement.

    You are happy to set it aside because you don’t like it anymore, only 1 year later.

    We look like utter fools.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151

    The Argentinians tried to invade the Falkland Islands - did we fight them off with lawyers?

    You want a task force to retake Gibraltar from the Spaniards?

    Take a break, man. Have a nice cup of tea and a little lie down...
  • Yes - that’s how you justify it to yourself. But the Government is making us look like fools on the international stage, as well as making us look untrustworthy. We agreed a long-term deal in good faith and now you are happy to rip it up.

    It was a long-term international agreement.

    You are happy to set it aside because you don’t like it anymore, only 1 year later.

    We look like utter fools.
    So what?

    Agreements only last as long as both parties are interested in them. Twas always thus. If countries want an agreement with us it needs to be worth our while and vice-versa.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,898
    kinabalu said:

    That's my main bet.

    Bought Biden EC supremacy at 28.5 for unit stake £30.

    That's big for me.
    That is a big bet. Equivalent to £60 per EC vote. A lot of upside - and potential downside.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,080

    I have no qualms with the third part of your proposal. The second part I do and I think its redundant, unnecessary and counterproductive. But there's no problems with the third part and it doesn't need the second part.
    OK Then you and I have a deal that preserves frictionless trade, respects UK (and EU) sovereignty, avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.

    Here it is:

    Both parties agree that if a change in regulations or standards is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).

    Now we need to sell it to Johnson and Barnier. How hard will that be? What could be their objections?
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    FF43 said:

    Let's take the Treaty of Utrecht, which is the only legal reason why Gibraltar is British rather than Spanish. Would you say, if you were in the UK government that the Treaty of Utrecht is a nice to have or would you want Spain to abide by it?
    You could argue that the Spanish already don't recognise the Treaty of Utrecht considering they fundamentally disagree with some of the provisions in it, it's just their ability to enforce that non-recognition is limited. However, the difference is that the Treaty of Utrecht is 300 years old, this agreement isn't even 12 months old and it's the same Prime Minister and same government reneging on their own word.
  • Mr. Gate, it's been quite a spectacle watching some nodding dog fools hail Boris' buckling as a triumph only to lament the fact it wasn't, er, scrutinised. Damned fools.

    The Conservatives only have themselves to blame. They had the example of Jeremy Corbyn right in front of them and still voted for a buffoon unworthy of the office. May might've been lacklustre at best, but at least she was hardworking and dutiful. The clown doesn't even have those virtues.
  • Barnesian said:

    OK Then you and I have a deal that preserves frictionless trade, respects UK (and EU) sovereignty, avoids a border in the Irish Sea and respects the WDA.

    Here it is:

    Both parties agree that if a change in regulations or standards is deemed to be unacceptable by the other party, that party will formally declare that to be the case and the Agreement on zero tariiffs and no inspections will cease [12] months after such a declaration. (This is to give adequate time to prepare for the end of the Agreement).

    Now we need to sell it to Johnson and Barnier. How hard will that be? What could be their objections?
    That is an absolutely 100% perfectly reasonable arrangement to me.

    I think Johnson would accept that but not Barnier.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,724

    Because we couldn't exercise that sovereignty without leaving and we wanted to exercise it.

    What you are saying is like saying if you have money in the bank that is yours and you want to spend it then why withdraw it from the bank? Of course as long as the money remains in the bank it remains yours but if you want to spend it then the money must leave the bank.

    The fact of sovereignty was never at issue, the exercise of it was.
    But that's the whole point. You are exhibiting classic cakeism. You wanted to leave the money in the bank and take it out. But you can't do both. You are sovereign over your money whatever you do, just that you can't do both.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    edited September 2020

    So what?

    Agreements only last as long as both parties are interested in them. Twas always thus. If countries want an agreement with us it needs to be worth our while and vice-versa.
    Because becoming untrustworthy has consequences. How do you think we’re going to negotiate these “fantastic” “new” trade deals when nobody trusts us?

    Why do you expect the EU to be reasonable, and then whine about it some more, when we are happy to simply rip up our good-faith agreements on a whim?

    If you rip up a contract and refuse to pay a debt because it no longer is convenient, you get a county court judgement against you. That has consequences. This is the same, but on an international scale.

    You, and the government, are acting like entitled spoilt children, and further ruining the image of Britain on the international stage.
  • Scott_xP said:

    You want a task force to retake Gibraltar from the Spaniards?

    Take a break, man. Have a nice cup of tea and a little lie down...
    Only if the Spanish invade and if they do then that will be their choice.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,031
  • Because becoming untrustworthy has consequences. How do you think we’re going to negotiate these “fantastic” “new” trade deals when nobody trusts us?

    Why do you expect the EU to be reasonable, and then whine about it some more, when we are happy to simply rip up our good-faith agreements on a whim?

    If you rip up a contract and refuse to pay a debt because it no longer is convenient, you get a county court judgement against you. That has consequences. This is the same, but on an international scale.

    You, and the government, are acting like entitled spoilt children, and further ruining the image of Britain on the international stage.
    I think that we will negotiate new trade agreements if both parties consider it to be in their interests.

    And I think we will go into them on the clear understanding that they will only last as long as both parties consider it to be in their interests and that if we cease to do then we may quit the arrangements.

    But hadn't Brexit already made that clear in the first place anyway?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151

    Mr. Gate, it's been quite a spectacle watching some nodding dog fools hail Boris' buckling as a triumph only to lament the fact it wasn't, er, scrutinised. Damned fools.

    If they ever find out who signed the wretched WA, there will be hell to pay...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    RH1992 said:

    You could argue that the Spanish already don't recognise the Treaty of Utrecht considering they fundamentally disagree with some of the provisions in it, it's just their ability to enforce that non-recognition is limited. However, the difference is that the Treaty of Utrecht is 300 years old, this agreement isn't even 12 months old and it's the same Prime Minister and same government reneging on their own word.
    There are several other provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht that have been quietly forgotten about over the centuries. Point is, the UK government pushes a hard line on it because that's the basis for their claim on Gibraltar.

    Also I wouldn't say Spain outright rejects the treaty. At times it has hinted at such but generally the dispute is over the territory to which it applies. Spain argues (with justification it has to be said) that land from the airport to the border is out of scope, as is some of the claimed sea territory.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,367
    Mango said:
    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
  • What you might call a seamless transition.

    https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/1302865282478886912?s=20
  • FF43 said:

    There are several other provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht that have been quietly forgotten about over the centuries. Point is, the UK government pushes a hard line on it because that's the basis for their claim on Gibraltar.

    Also I wouldn't say Spain outright rejects the treaty. At times it has hinted at such but generally the dispute is over the territory to which it applies. Spain argues (with justification it has to be said) that land from the airport to the border is out of scope, as is some of the claimed sea territory.
    We don't have "a claim" on Gibraltar. We have Gibraltar and we have the military to back that up. If we didn't, then we wouldn't have Gibraltar anymore and your claim wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

    Realpolitik is what matters not the paper tiger that is international law.

    Which is precisely why the UK must do whatever is in the UK's own interests. The EU will look after their own.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,568
    Anything is legal if you don't get caught and the consequences will be the consequences.

    So, if the British people can do the time, then Boris should do the crime.

    That's a stonewall penalty, Trevor.

    Glad to have cleared that one up.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,542

    Only if the Spanish invade and if they do then that will be their choice.
    Oh no. This morning we were at war with the French and the Scots and now we have to take on the Spanish. We are clearly just up for a fight. Who else fancies their chances?
  • Scott_xP said:

    You want a task force to retake Gibraltar from the Spaniards?

    Take a break, man. Have a nice cup of tea and a little lie down...
    You are telling someone to take a break??

    You are on here 24/7
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    We don't have "a claim" on Gibraltar. We have Gibraltar and we have the military to back that up. If we didn't, then we wouldn't have Gibraltar anymore and your claim wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

    Realpolitik is what matters not the paper tiger that is international law.

    Which is precisely why the UK must do whatever is in the UK's own interests. The EU will look after their own.
    It is not in our interests to look like utter mugs to everyone else.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    glw said:

    You could just as fairly blame the die-hard Remainers who prevented any sort of "soft Brexit" in the first place. It was said at the time that it would lead to hard Brexit or worse, and so it has.
    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    But how many of those 12m views were you?
    Just one. Unfortunately too many things to do to spend all day looking at protestors chase people out of restaurants and wreck someone's business.
  • FF43 said:

    There are several other provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht that have been quietly forgotten about over the centuries. Point is, the UK government pushes a hard line on it because that's the basis for their claim on Gibraltar.

    Also I wouldn't say Spain outright rejects the treaty. At times it has hinted at such but generally the dispute is over the territory to which it applies. Spain argues (with justification it has to be said) that land from the airport to the border is out of scope, as is some of the claimed sea territory.
    "I want a little bit of Menorca!"
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884

    We don't have "a claim" on Gibraltar. We have Gibraltar and we have the military to back that up. If we didn't, then we wouldn't have Gibraltar anymore and your claim wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.

    Realpolitik is what matters not the paper tiger that is international law.

    Which is precisely why the UK must do whatever is in the UK's own interests. The EU will look after their own.
    So nuking Madrid is back on the agenda now because no agreement or law is ever worth the paper it is written on?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    Pulpstar said:

    This was true right up until the last General Election, however the Tories have an 80 seat majority now so can pursue whatever Brexit they wish.
    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
  • Only if the Spanish invade and if they do then that will be their choice.
    Were you around when HYUFD suggested that 'we' would turn Gib into another Stalingrad if Johnny Spaniard got uppity? You seem to have found the page he was reading from..
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151

    You are telling someone to take a break??

    I am not the one advocating a hot war with Spain
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    This government is basically turning Britain into a hybrid of Millwall Football Club and Leeds United. Everyone think’s we’re scum, but we don’t care.
  • FF43 said:

    So nuking Madrid is back on the agenda now because no agreement or law is ever worth the paper it is written on?
    Its only on the agenda if Spain decides to go to war with the UK.

    So long as Spain doesn't, it won't be on the agenda. If Spain decides to do go to war with us though, it will be the military not the lawyers that fight our battles.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,080

    That is an absolutely 100% perfectly reasonable arrangement to me.

    I think Johnson would accept that but not Barnier.
    I really don't know.

    Johnson might object that it prevents him doing other trade deals in the short term (and also risks losing supporters to the Brexit party as they see it as yet another extension). On the other hand it gets him off the hook of a damaging and disruptive no deal and would be welcomed by most of his Cabinet including the Chancellor. He can present it as having our cake and eating it too.

    Barnier might object that the UK is getting the benefits of frictionless trading without long-term commitment. On the other hand it avoids a damaging no deal and still preserves the standards and regulations of the SM.

    I think there is a deal to be done. They each need to pick up the toys beside their prams and get talking.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151

    It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.

    The forgotten genius that is Mark Reckless...

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1302918929183117312
  • It was also this government and this parliament, with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority, that passed the long-term international treaty that is the Withdrawal Agreement and celebrated it as a massive success and as a fantastic deal for Britain.
    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
  • Brexit: The reason why Boris Johnson is jeopardising an EU free trade deal

    https://www.itv.com/news/2020-09-07/the-reason-why-boris-johnson-is-jeopardising-an-eu-free-trade-deal


    So, peace in NI is being jeopardised so that Cummings can invest our taxes in AI companies.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    Absolutely and it served its purpose. Now we're looking at what replaces it going forwards.
    Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
  • Were you around when HYUFD suggested that 'we' would turn Gib into another Stalingrad if Johnny Spaniard got uppity? You seem to have found the page he was reading from..
    I do not agree with HYUFD on these matters.

    What I do think though is that the threat of our military will deter Spain from invading Gibraltar - not the threat of our lawyers lodging legal documents in a court in Madrid.

    That is what people are overlooking, we're only talking about domestic courts for domestic law - not international courts or international law.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    I’m not outraged, I just think it’s hilarious. The Brexiteers and the government look like utter fools.
  • This government is basically turning Britain into a hybrid of Millwall Football Club and Leeds United. Everyone think’s we’re scum, but we don’t care.

    Wasn't that always the world's opinion of Britain/England?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538
    This thread has been superseded.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151

    So, peace in NI is being jeopardised so that Cummings can invest our taxes in AI companies.

    None of which are run by his mates. Maybe.
  • Which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?
    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
  • Labor Day in US.

    Election really starts tomorrow as voters finally switch on properly.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    If the EU wanted it to be long term they could have put stuff that would interest us in the long term like a trade deal.

    Instead they chose to insist upon sequencing and only put the bits we were interested in for 12 months.

    C'est la vie. They made the bed. Its been 12 months, time to move on now.
    I ask again, which part of “long-term international treaty” do you not understand?

    I’m not interested in your childish whining.
  • Boris (and Cummings) are failing to think 2 or 3 steps ahead.

    Quite aside from the ethics of reneging on aspects of a treaty they signed less than a year ago (and the consequences for our reputation) there are practical implications too.

    Once Biden is elected (remember: he has Irish heritage) he will ally with the EU to make sure the UK respects the NI border, even in the eventuality of No Deal. This is pressure we can't resist.

    We are going to have very serious political and economic fall-out next year, which will be reflected in our economic situation, international isolation, soaring incursions across the channel (no Dublin), a solid SNP majority at Holyrood and major Tory losses in the locals. I can see the planning and local authority reforms being a disaster too. All of which is why I can see Boris going sometime during June-October 2021 next year.

    The solution is to agree a UK state aid regime, now, in areas that doesn't undercut the EU in its areas of interest (exempting digital) with a UK/EU panel to adjudicate and, allowing latitude for some subsidy, to the extent EU countries do the same, and an increase in the UK fishing quota plus a "phasing-in" period for the new systems.

    But, it's all probably too late.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,031


    Absolutely I would like frictionless trade so long as it doesn't impinge our democracy.

    The way I view it is that frictionless trade is nice to have, democracy is essential.

    You do realise you live in the UK? An oligarchy with near-permanent elective dictatorship, no regional democracy, no local democracy, no democratic accountability, no fair representation, an appointed/hereditary upper chamber, and a press that is on the last fumes of freedom?
This discussion has been closed.