Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » That was then. This is now.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » That was then. This is now.
“Britain does not break treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may wish to make.” – Margaret Thatcher , Leader of the Opposition, April 1975
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Can maths tell us how to win at fantasy football?
Oxford Mathematician Josh Bull won the 2019-2020 Premier League Fantasy Football competition from nearly 8 million entrants. So how did he do it? Did he by any chance use mathematics?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzEuweGrHvc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53740931
We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/senior-tories-urge-ministers-to-scrap-illegal-brexit-rule-plan
“Senior Brexiter and chair of the Liaison committee” Bernard Jenkins - “the Govt must have misspoke - this legislation is purely about the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement”
“Chair of the ERG” Bernard Jenkins - “we only voted for the WA under the understanding that we would ditch it subsequently”.
What’s that I hear you say? They’re the same person? Surely not!
Actually force the Govt to deal with it as a certain reality, and actually get the British press to focus on it and what it means, rather than doing the govt bidding of presenting it as a threat to blackmail the EU, and there may still be a slim chance of some sort of deal. Or any no deal period being shorter than it might otherwise be.
Such as not sending my child to school (WE WILL FINE YOU) or not self-isolating after the authorities didn't take my details (WE WILL FINE YOU) or taking a big shit outside parliament to show my contempt for their contempt for this country.
And so today's headline. Gatherings of 6 to be banned. My one and only trip to the pub. 3 of us at a table. 4 others at a neighbouring table. Lots of other spaced out tables. If people from more than 6 households being in a room spreads the pox then that's pubs done. Schools. Churches. Hell even my local takeaway has more than 6 staff.
Except that they will half-arsed set a rule with huge logic holes in it. And people will, then break this new law in a very specific and limited way- something the government and certain PBers will of course support
https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1303485548804308993
https://twitter.com/FriedsonAndrew/status/1302591878957862912
Unusually these vaccine trials are happening under the glare of the World’s media, reported on simplistically and often with little understanding of the process, and could potentially hole any mass vaccination programme below the waterline before it even begins. The general public will zero in on the eventual minuscule risk of adverse reaction, the court of public opinion will declare it “unsafe”, and uptake levels will plummet.
Even more so as it is protecting against a virus that itself is harmless to a huge majority of those who get it. To say that a vaccine is not a “silver bullet” is an understatement.
Seven people going on a picnic in a park = bad
https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1303544850437021698
And there’s a gaping political hole for someone to fill, if they stand up and start making the grown up case for the Swedish approach, rather than doubling down on the fear and hysteria.
Quite clear that Starmer isn’t going to fill it. And the Lib Dems are led by the same empty suit who’s been invisible since December.
I would suggest that should anyone step into this political void, the government’s polling support would collapse.
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS/Related-Conditions/Transverse-Myelitis
Oh I hope not!
"International law" violates that principle since it attempts to set in stone issues that a democratically elected government may subsequently wish to change. If a democratically elected government wishes to change the law then it absolutely should be able to do so.
Domestic law should not be broken. International law though can be. International law is not as binding in my personal opinion as domestic law.
Meanwhile it's instructive to look at the front pages of todays newspapers, as shown on the BBC. The Express and Times have a cheerful upbeat PM Johnson; the Mirror a downbeat miserable one. The Guardian's one is neutral.
This democratically elected government was elected to sign this particular piece of international law! It was literally their flagship policy.
If they want to back out of it (😂) then it should be done properly, by mutual consent. Anything else just makes us look like a tinpot little untrustworthy country.
https://order-order.com/2020/09/08/vicderbyshire-correctly-flags-interviewees-partisan-biases/
What makes this absurd is what treaty we are breaking. Is it a Bendy Bananas treaty imposed on us by callous Europeans? No sir, this is Boris's Brexit Blockbuster negotiated by the sex prowler himself. So proud he was of his treaty that he called a general election to enaure it became law. Got scores of new Tory MPs elected on manifesto to implement it. And now he wants to scrap it because he didn't understand it.
You have chosen a hill of almost HYUFDian absurdity to make a stand on...
On topic: thankfully we scheduled our daughter's birthday party for Sunday, so it just slips under the net. But all the kids' normal extra curricular activities, things like Scouts and drama classes, where people have worked so hard to get in person activities set up with social distancing to comply with the previous rules, are now fucked (yet kids are crammed together in school in "bubbles" of 240... Go figure).
Boris should resign over this - it is just wrong
But thanks for sharing your personal opinion on a question of jurisprudence. Have you held high judicial office for long?
Now ...........
Doesn't, of course, apply to 'matters of the heart' Or trousers!
With Scotland leaving too, back to the Kingdom of England which did well enough for 780 years till 1707
In a way it’s a bit like the argument on debt default. Britain has never defaulted on its debt obligations. Do it once, even temporarily, and the price is paid back over decades.
That is a step too far for me and in my opinion for Boris
He needs to go
Always good to have a late convert.
I`d be very pleased if Ed Davey were to enter that void - we are talkng about liberties, after all. Won`t happen though.
I can`t help cheekily reflecting on my own PB header, written close to the start of all this:
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/from-stocky-why-it-should-be-made-clear-that-lockdown-will-not-extend-past-12-weeks/
According to this article, there was a 1 in 20 000 risk of severe demeylination with small pox vaccination in the 1962 outbreak.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83700/
Hopefully this is a one off, and turns out not to be a major issue, but there is a plausuible biological link to the vaccine.
* No laughing at the back
Whereas some posters on here are so keen to tie themselves on knots defending their cult it's actually delusional.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1303440347071209472
And now he wants to break it! And remember how some insisted on here that it would have very limited impact on future trade deals? Bzzzz wrong:
"Senior Democrats have warned that any attempt by the UK government to backtrack on the Brexit agreement on Northern Ireland would jeopardize a future US-UK free trade deal and could hobble bilateral relations across the board if Joe Biden wins the presidency." https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/brexit-northern-ireland-us-uk-trade-deal.
They go on: "Diplomatic sources in the US suggested that the UK government might not have fully thought through the ramifications of its abrupt announcement and had been taken aback by the pushback in Washington.
“It is mind-boggling that Johnson would even consider doing this. He is breaching the only red line Biden has when it comes to Brexit which is to protect the Good Friday Agreement,”"
And anyway, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the issue is not whether the U.K. has the right to break treaty obligations (although to do so it must repudiate the treaty - it cannot ignore aspects of it whilst officially claiming to stand by it). It is, fundamentally, about whether it should.
“Britain does not break Treaty obligations”.
What is most interesting, though, is that extremists like you will not take responsibility for this decision to renege on commitments voted into law by this Parliament just a few months ago, after an election campaign in which the electorate was told the deal agreed was a triumph. Instead, you will blame others for this flagrant dishonesty. You do not even have the courage of your convictions.
And, have you managed to Google a justification for your claim yesterday that Tory and LibDem MPs knowingly and deliberately voted to break international law in 2013?
"It also comes after an online meeting Johnson held with police forces last week, where officers said they wanted to see simpler rules on social distancing.
The new limit, which comes into effect on Monday, applies across all of England and in both private and public spaces, including parks, pubs and restaurants. It also covers all ages, meaning children will be prevented from gathering in larger groups, for example to play informal games of football.
The only exemptions are when households or support bubbles are larger than six people; where gatherings are for work or education purposes; or for weddings, funerals, and organised team sports conducted in a safe way."
Prevent children gathering in large groups. What, like school, college, university? They can gather in a large group to walk home from school across the park - thats ok. But if they stop for informal games of football thats going to be illegal.
I also note that its OK to gather in large groups for work purposes. Like running a pub for example. As your pub can't function without pissheads then having more than 6 people in your pub is also ok. As long as they don't go for that informal game of football afterwards.
If in 1996 when the Tories were facing getting wiped out to Labour, the party were to agree international treaties in order to rule out Labours manifesto pledges ... Eg to sign a deal with the United States saying that we wouldn't introduce a National Minimum Wage then should the new Government be forced to abide by that under all circumstances?
Worth noting that there has not yet been a parliamentary vote on this, so currently it is the executive not being bound by Parliament.
Great, punchy header @Cyclefree
Internationally the Govt looks cooked on this one, iy matters not what OUR laws are in France or Berlin
Although my local MP has described the proposed Tory planning reforms as “breathtakingly bad” and promises to rebel against them.
My position is that Parliament can change the law. Unless or until it does then the law remains the law, but planning to change the law is not a breach of the law ... And if the law is changed then there is a new law.
And if Corbyn had agreed an international treaty embedding his politics then if we defeated him in the ballot box I would be 100% ok with tearing that treaty up.
Apart from the stamp duty holiday, it’s hard to think of much at all this government has done that a Corbyn government would not have.
How disappointing.
Is it @Scrapheap_as_was that is the PB FFL organiser? The league doesn't seem to be up yet, though my other leagues are.
Ominous lack of signings for Leicester this year so far, particularly with those Europa League games too. Rumours that Castagne (fullback) will sign, but not much else.
I remember when we were worried about our AAA rating.
Shame we can`t have a confirmatory referendum now. Was there a window of opportunity for parliament to enact one last year?
Laura McInerney, who studied Gove and Cummings when they were at the Department for Education and she was an education journalist, has described the G+C view of rules as rules don't count unless there is a sanction for breaking them and someone with the power to enforce the sanction.
That explains a lot- prorogation, Barnard Castle, even this breaking international law.
And whilst it's technically true, it's blooming scary. Because who can make Johnson, Gove or Cummings do something they don't want to?
I suppose we will learn to love Smash and the Austin Maxi again, in the sunny uplands of Brexitshire.
https://twitter.com/TrueSayGB/status/1303589881839595528?s=19
I suppose the "more important" things are the culture wars in the UK: should generate plenty of jobs that...
Beyond that, whatever you put in domestic law is irrelevant when judging whether the treaty is being adhered to. And if there are any enforcement mechanisms written into that treaty then they will continue to apply. So in this case the UK will still be subject to the rulings of the ECJ, regardless of what changes have been made domestically.