Snap poll finds more than half saying BJ should resign – politicalbetting.com

DougSeal said:

Endillion said:

Please cry for me, Allegra Stratton
The truth is... I have no idea what the truth is.

I've just watched the video: am I alone in thinking that Ms Stratton has been extremely hard done by?

She made a joke and laughed inappropriately and had to resign. That’s all I can see she’s done. Anything else?

Endillion said:

Please cry for me, Allegra Stratton
The truth is... I have no idea what the truth is.

I've just watched the video: am I alone in thinking that Ms Stratton has been extremely hard done by?

Quincel said:

DougSeal said:

Why did it take a year for this video to emerge. I mean, great it did, but presumably someone’s been sitting on it these last 12 months?

I always wonder about stuff like this. My theory is that rather than someone noticing this 12 months ago and waiting until the right time to release it, someone who has access to the archives (maybe a secret copy on their personal PC) went back through them when the party story broke to see if she mentioned it. But maybe I'm wrong, and politics is even more cut-throat and cynical than I think.

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Endillion said:

Please cry for me, Allegra Stratton
The truth is... I have no idea what the truth is.

I've just watched the video: am I alone in thinking that Ms Stratton has been extremely hard done by?

She made a joke and laughed inappropriately and had to resign. That’s all I can see she’s done. Anything else?

My reading was they were trying out how to deal with the party problem and she just laughed at how absurd the whole thing was.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Feel rather sorry for Stratton. This will haunt her, as she tearfully says, for the rest of her life

This gives the lie to any idea this is some kind of internal Spectator/ITV plot. She is married to James Forsyth, the Spec's political ed, he won't be happy seeing his wife in bits, nor will their kids be overjoyed at the sight of Mum weeping on telly

Bollocks, she's crying because she got caught, no sympathy.

No, she isn't. She has been painted as a heartless witch in front of an entire country, during a time of great death and suffering. The emotional impact on her must be severe, and it will be long lasting

She had to resign, and it is good that she did. But she's still a human being. She made a foolish, throwaway remark about a party which - it seems - she never even attended. Who hasn't made a daft remark that would look terrible if filmed and put in a different context?

One can condemn the actions but still forgive the person. And she has done the right thing. Resigned almost immediately

She hasn't been painted like that, she is heartless.

While we were all making sacrificing she was taking the piss.

Good grief - she’s heartless based on this situation??

She wasn’t taking the piss out of people being locked down v Downing Street denizens having a jolly.

She was clearly, like most normal people, laughing at the ridiculousness of the situation of potentially answering questions she couldn’t really answer as firstly she wasn’t there and secondly she most likely had been briefed what she had to say. It’s almost as if her comments were the living reality of this emoji 🤷🏻‍♀️

And since when did everyone have to be so fucking serious - bad shit happens and people laugh and joke about things to get through - gallows humour, tommies joking as they are being bombed by the Germans, my friends who are doctors in A&E who have ripped the piss out of the situation as - well it’s not going to make things better than being a puritan wanker or worse constantly pretending to be so miserable.

I quite happily admit that I’ve constantly used humour in my personal and professional situation over the last two years, including around the long lead up and aftermath of my father’s death last year so I cannot support this ridiculous po-faced bollocks about someone laughing - they weren’t mocking people suffering - they were mocking the situation they found themselves in.

DougSeal said:

Why did it take a year for this video to emerge. I mean, great it did, but presumably someone’s been sitting on it these last 12 months?

Endillion said:

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Breaking

Boris to hold press conference at 6.00pm tonight

Andy_JS said:

Extra telephones lines may be being installed at offices in Whitehall. (Well they would be if this was 1995).

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

No of course not. We were always sovereign.

We have put our sovereignty into abeyance until we invoke the Article. Its still there, like a break glass, but until we want to do so we're simply not exercising it.

So if you want to exercise your sovereignty you can invoke the Article. If you don't and are OK with abeyance, then no need to do so.

Ah ok so our sovereignty is "in abeyance" (a state of temporary disuse or suspension). So our sovereignty has been suspended. But you said that the NI deal protected our sovereignty, not that it was in abeyance. And if protected means we could exercise it at any time thereby becoming sovereign but have not done so yet then that was precisely our situation while in the EU.

So which is it.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

londonpubman said:

rottenborough said:

So, no 5pm presser then?

Likely to be an announcement to Commons tomorrow afternoon with briefing at 5pm tomorrow. NOT CONFIRMED

Will be absolutely laughable if they even think about it. What planet are these people on?

It's completely mental, today Pfizer announce that three doses gives a high level of neutralising protection against Omicron, our booster programme is mostly Pfizer and yet the idiots in charge are desperately looking for a dead cat to distract the nation so we'll end up with completely unnecessary restrictions with no end date because if this is the new normal (COVID being endemic and all that) then these NPIs also become the new normal.

I think the current news makes new restrictions less likely not more likely. A bit like the leaking of Hancock's video. Which is possibly why it was leaked.

This has shot to pieces any moral authority the PM had for new restrictions. I think even if he was planning new restrictions, those now are hopefully stillborn because he knows now he can't do that.

Hope so at least.

I don't think so, Boris likes a big gesture and plan B is a big gesture that will capture the front pages for a few days. It will make precisely zero difference to COVID, one only needs to look at continental Europe where they have got all of the plan B restrictions plus a lot more yet face a worse winter than we do. The only reason to implement plan B is to grab headlines and make it look like they are doing something.

I'm coming to the conclusion that vaxports are pretty pointless now. If they had introduced them 3 months ago (when I was advocating for them on here) they would have done good work: driving up vax uptake. Now? This late in the day? Meh

The other big Plan B measure - Work From Home - will do a lot of economic damage to city centres (at Xmas!) and barely delay Omicron

The focus of the government should instead be on surging the booster campaign to warp speed, and simultaneously preparing the NHS for, potentially, a lot of cases over a fairly short period of time - from now til end Jan?

However I agree with you that they will probably go with Plan B, just because. And I fear that will be a slip road to Lockdown

With vaccine passports what you get is 2-3m into the vaccine funnel at the expense of 8-10m into the natural immunity funnel. The latter is preferable.

But yes, we are heading inexorably to lockdown 4 and this time I have no hope of ever leaving it because there's nothing to save the day. Let the unvaccinated fools die and be done with it.

IshmaelZ said:

The most interesting event of the day is still Sunak nodding in judicious approval at Blackford saying that Tory MPs needed to consider Johnson’s fitness to lead. He is behind this.

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

Stratton statement:

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1468617973648691200?s=20

What a lovely place she's got

Anabobazina said:

Is there anything more annoying on PB than people prefacing their posts with the word

Breaking

?

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

londonpubman said:

rottenborough said:

So, no 5pm presser then?

Likely to be an announcement to Commons tomorrow afternoon with briefing at 5pm tomorrow. NOT CONFIRMED

Will be absolutely laughable if they even think about it. What planet are these people on?

It's completely mental, today Pfizer announce that three doses gives a high level of neutralising protection against Omicron, our booster programme is mostly Pfizer and yet the idiots in charge are desperately looking for a dead cat to distract the nation so we'll end up with completely unnecessary restrictions with no end date because if this is the new normal (COVID being endemic and all that) then these NPIs also become the new normal.

I think the current news makes new restrictions less likely not more likely. A bit like the leaking of Hancock's video. Which is possibly why it was leaked.

This has shot to pieces any moral authority the PM had for new restrictions. I think even if he was planning new restrictions, those now are hopefully stillborn because he knows now he can't do that.

Hope so at least.

I don't think so, Boris likes a big gesture and plan B is a big gesture that will capture the front pages for a few days. It will make precisely zero difference to COVID, one only needs to look at continental Europe where they have got all of the plan B restrictions plus a lot more yet face a worse winter than we do. The only reason to implement plan B is to grab headlines and make it look like they are doing something.

I'm coming to the conclusion that vaxports are pretty pointless now. If they had introduced them 3 months ago (when I was advocating for them on here) they would have done good work: driving up vax uptake. Now? This late in the day? Meh

The other big Plan B measure - Work From Home - will do a lot of economic damage to city centres (at Xmas!) and barely delay Omicron

The focus of the government should instead be on surging the booster campaign to warp speed, and simultaneously preparing the NHS for, potentially, a lot of cases over a fairly short period of time - from now til end Jan?

However I agree with you that they will probably go with Plan B, just because. And I fear that will be a slip road to Lockdown

With vaccine passports what you get is 2-3m into the vaccine funnel at the expense of 8-10m into the natural immunity funnel. The latter is preferable.

But yes, we are heading inexorably to lockdown 4 and this time I have no hope of ever leaving it because there's nothing to save the day. Let the unvaccinated fools die and be done with it.

RochdalePioneers said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Joy.

Fans attending sports events including Premier League matches this weekend are expected to be required to have vaccine passports or proof of a negative test as part of new government rules to tackle the Covid pandemic.

The Premier League was in talks with Whitehall officials on Wednesday seeking clarification on the requirements of complying with the government’s plan B, due to be announced to deal with the spread of the Omicron variant.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-grounds-set-for-vaccine-passports-under-covid-plan-b-mrwcf6kkw

Glad I went to see Spurs on Sunday, I expect getting into the stadium will now take 2-3h of queuing and checking vaccine status with arguments and fights breaking out.

It'll be interesting to see if they accept the blue cards issued at vaccination rather than an "app" on a phone. I've been surveyed twice so far this season (once at Arsenal and once at Leicester), and on both occasions the blue card was fine.

I still object to them asking, but so long as they aren't insisting on me downloading something on to my phone, then I'm not too worried. But there is bound to be trouble if they actually stop people from entering without proof of being vaccinated.

You can order a paper document from the
NHS Hospitals - more official than the card but not linked to the matrix

Whilst I object to Vaxports on principle, they exist and I can't do the things I want to do without them. So I just show the QR code on the app. Why faff with paper documents?

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

No of course not. We were always sovereign.

We have put our sovereignty into abeyance until we invoke the Article. Its still there, like a break glass, but until we want to do so we're simply not exercising it.

So if you want to exercise your sovereignty you can invoke the Article. If you don't and are OK with abeyance, then no need to do so.

Ah ok so our sovereignty is "in abeyance" (a state of temporary disuse or suspension). So our sovereignty has been suspended. But you said that the NI deal protected our sovereignty, not that it was in abeyance. And if protected means we could exercise it at any time thereby becoming sovereign but have not done so yet then that was precisely our situation while in the EU.

So which is it.

Both.

Just as in the EU we had our sovereignty (because we have Article 50/16) but it is in abeyance until we exercise the relevant Article.

Its not precisely the situation while in the EU, because the abeyance only applies to an tiny fraction (NI) and not the whole country.

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

No of course not. We were always sovereign.

We have put our sovereignty into abeyance until we invoke the Article. Its still there, like a break glass, but until we want to do so we're simply not exercising it.

So if you want to exercise your sovereignty you can invoke the Article. If you don't and are OK with abeyance, then no need to do so.

Ah ok so our sovereignty is "in abeyance" (a state of temporary disuse or suspension). So our sovereignty has been suspended. But you said that the NI deal protected our sovereignty, not that it was in abeyance. And if protected means we could exercise it at any time thereby becoming sovereign but have not done so yet then that was precisely our situation while in the EU.

So which is it.

Both.

Just as in the EU we had our sovereignty (because we have Article 50/16) but it is in abeyance until we exercise the relevant Article.

Its not precisely the situation while in the EU, because the abeyance only applies to an tiny fraction (NI) and not the whole country.

At least you accept that the NI deal does not protect our sovereignty and our sovereignty is currently in abeyance ie suspended.

IshmaelZ said:

Anabobazina said:

Is there anything more annoying on PB than people prefacing their posts with the word

Breaking

?

White



Space

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

We were always sovereign for both. The question is if you wanted to exercise your sovereignty or not.

The English and Welsh voted to exercise their sovereignty, hence invoking Article 50.
The NI did not, hence the special arrangements.

Now if the NI wish to exercise theirs, then A16 is the right answer for them, just as it was for the UK as a whole. For the same reasons. Using the same logic.

No inconsistencies.

Roger said:

Johnson is such a piece of work. Can anyone with a straight face say they've ever known a more repellent Prime Minister?

I feel sorry for Allegra Stratten. She shouldn't have had anything to do with the ghastly man but she not the first to have been attracted by power

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

We were always sovereign for both. The question is if you wanted to exercise your sovereignty or not.

The English and Welsh voted to exercise their sovereignty, hence invoking Article 50.
The NI did not, hence the special arrangements.

Now if the NI wish to exercise theirs, then A16 is the right answer for them, just as it was for the UK as a whole. For the same reasons. Using the same logic.

No inconsistencies.

Excellent. So we were sovereign while in the EU: tick. And we are sovereign with this NI deal: tick.

So why all the fuss about leaving the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Johnson is such a piece of work. Can anyone with a straight face say they've ever known a more repellent Prime Minister?

I feel sorry for Allegra Stratten. She shouldn't have had anything to do with the ghastly man but she not the first to have been attracted by power

Theresa May.
Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair.

All far more repellent.

rottenborough said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

londonpubman said:

rottenborough said:

So, no 5pm presser then?

Likely to be an announcement to Commons tomorrow afternoon with briefing at 5pm tomorrow. NOT CONFIRMED

Will be absolutely laughable if they even think about it. What planet are these people on?

It's completely mental, today Pfizer announce that three doses gives a high level of neutralising protection against Omicron, our booster programme is mostly Pfizer and yet the idiots in charge are desperately looking for a dead cat to distract the nation so we'll end up with completely unnecessary restrictions with no end date because if this is the new normal (COVID being endemic and all that) then these NPIs also become the new normal.

I think the current news makes new restrictions less likely not more likely. A bit like the leaking of Hancock's video. Which is possibly why it was leaked.

This has shot to pieces any moral authority the PM had for new restrictions. I think even if he was planning new restrictions, those now are hopefully stillborn because he knows now he can't do that.

Hope so at least.

I don't think so, Boris likes a big gesture and plan B is a big gesture that will capture the front pages for a few days. It will make precisely zero difference to COVID, one only needs to look at continental Europe where they have got all of the plan B restrictions plus a lot more yet face a worse winter than we do. The only reason to implement plan B is to grab headlines and make it look like they are doing something.

I'm coming to the conclusion that vaxports are pretty pointless now. If they had introduced them 3 months ago (when I was advocating for them on here) they would have done good work: driving up vax uptake. Now? This late in the day? Meh

The other big Plan B measure - Work From Home - will do a lot of economic damage to city centres (at Xmas!) and barely delay Omicron

The focus of the government should instead be on surging the booster campaign to warp speed, and simultaneously preparing the NHS for, potentially, a lot of cases over a fairly short period of time - from now til end Jan?

However I agree with you that they will probably go with Plan B, just because. And I fear that will be a slip road to Lockdown

With vaccine passports what you get is 2-3m into the vaccine funnel at the expense of 8-10m into the natural immunity funnel. The latter is preferable.

But yes, we are heading inexorably to lockdown 4 and this time I have no hope of ever leaving it because there's nothing to save the day. Let the unvaccinated fools die and be done with it.

Must say there is a terrible sense of inevitability about where we are headed. Again.

I'm very low about it all to be honest.

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

No of course not. We were always sovereign.

We have put our sovereignty into abeyance until we invoke the Article. Its still there, like a break glass, but until we want to do so we're simply not exercising it.

So if you want to exercise your sovereignty you can invoke the Article. If you don't and are OK with abeyance, then no need to do so.

Ah ok so our sovereignty is "in abeyance" (a state of temporary disuse or suspension). So our sovereignty has been suspended. But you said that the NI deal protected our sovereignty, not that it was in abeyance. And if protected means we could exercise it at any time thereby becoming sovereign but have not done so yet then that was precisely our situation while in the EU.

So which is it.

Both.

Just as in the EU we had our sovereignty (because we have Article 50/16) but it is in abeyance until we exercise the relevant Article.

Its not precisely the situation while in the EU, because the abeyance only applies to an tiny fraction (NI) and not the whole country.

At least you accept that the NI deal does not protect our sovereignty and our sovereignty is currently in abeyance ie suspended.

What are you talking about. Abeyance is protected.

Leon said:

pigeon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, the worst thing from this polling is this.

Three in ten say they are less likely to follow Covid rules as a result (29%).

This rises to a third of Labour voters (33%) and those aged 18-34 (33%) who say the same.

Over half say they are just as likely to follow the rules (54%)

Whatever Boris Johnson announces tonight will be ignored by large parts of the country making us less secure.

He needs to go and be replaced by someone with the credibility and authority to launch you new Covid-19 measures.

Except it wouldn't matter if Jesus were to descend from heaven to promote any new Covid measures. First of all, the country, or a large enough fraction of it at any rate, has had enough of Covid measures and will happily ignore them if they think they can get away with it. And secondly, there's probably nothing short of a full lockdown that will do anything to seriously impede the latest version of this bloody virus, it's questionable as to whether or not even that will work, and neither the economy nor wider society can sustain an annual cycle of hokey cokey house arrest for the next thousand years.

The Government can plausibly get away with yet more masks (useless) and WFH (not useful enough,) and after that it is out of options. Reinstating large scale business support and putting about five or six million people back on furlough until various roadmap steps between April and July, let alone shutting all the schools again for the Winter, is a non-starter. And if declining to go to those lengths means, to put it bluntly, tent hospitals and doctors having to decide which Covid patient gets a ventilator and which one gets a big shot of morphine, then that's what's going to end up happening. After all, selectively abandoning non-Covid patients to perish through lack of care capacity is already a reality in the NHS. Why should selectively abandoning Covid patients to perish as well seem so unimaginable?

Basically, if we are fortunate and this latest wave of the disease is moderate then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and if we aren't and it's bad then there are no workable strategies left for avoiding a massacre. Draconian restrictions are over. Finished.

I'm not sure it's as "mild" as we all hope


Benedict Barclay
@BarclayBenedict
·
2m
Replying to
@BarclayBenedict
The total number of people in hospital with Covid is 4,252, which is very sharply up on 2,550 last week.

Gauteng has fallen from 72% of cases to 59%, which shows that cases are now rising faster in other provinces.

WhisperingOracle said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Johnson is such a piece of work. Can anyone with a straight face say they've ever known a more repellent Prime Minister?

I feel sorry for Allegra Stratten. She shouldn't have had anything to do with the ghastly man but she not the first to have been attracted by power

Theresa May.
Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair.

All far more repellent.

None of them as dangerous as him, nor Thatcher and Major either.

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

No of course not. We were always sovereign.

We have put our sovereignty into abeyance until we invoke the Article. Its still there, like a break glass, but until we want to do so we're simply not exercising it.

So if you want to exercise your sovereignty you can invoke the Article. If you don't and are OK with abeyance, then no need to do so.

Ah ok so our sovereignty is "in abeyance" (a state of temporary disuse or suspension). So our sovereignty has been suspended. But you said that the NI deal protected our sovereignty, not that it was in abeyance. And if protected means we could exercise it at any time thereby becoming sovereign but have not done so yet then that was precisely our situation while in the EU.

So which is it.

Both.

Just as in the EU we had our sovereignty (because we have Article 50/16) but it is in abeyance until we exercise the relevant Article.

Its not precisely the situation while in the EU, because the abeyance only applies to an tiny fraction (NI) and not the whole country.

At least you accept that the NI deal does not protect our sovereignty and our sovereignty is currently in abeyance ie suspended.

What are you talking about. Abeyance is protected.

Abeyance = suspended = an absence of.

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

pigeon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, the worst thing from this polling is this.

Three in ten say they are less likely to follow Covid rules as a result (29%).

This rises to a third of Labour voters (33%) and those aged 18-34 (33%) who say the same.

Over half say they are just as likely to follow the rules (54%)

Whatever Boris Johnson announces tonight will be ignored by large parts of the country making us less secure.

He needs to go and be replaced by someone with the credibility and authority to launch you new Covid-19 measures.

Except it wouldn't matter if Jesus were to descend from heaven to promote any new Covid measures. First of all, the country, or a large enough fraction of it at any rate, has had enough of Covid measures and will happily ignore them if they think they can get away with it. And secondly, there's probably nothing short of a full lockdown that will do anything to seriously impede the latest version of this bloody virus, it's questionable as to whether or not even that will work, and neither the economy nor wider society can sustain an annual cycle of hokey cokey house arrest for the next thousand years.

The Government can plausibly get away with yet more masks (useless) and WFH (not useful enough,) and after that it is out of options. Reinstating large scale business support and putting about five or six million people back on furlough until various roadmap steps between April and July, let alone shutting all the schools again for the Winter, is a non-starter. And if declining to go to those lengths means, to put it bluntly, tent hospitals and doctors having to decide which Covid patient gets a ventilator and which one gets a big shot of morphine, then that's what's going to end up happening. After all, selectively abandoning non-Covid patients to perish through lack of care capacity is already a reality in the NHS. Why should selectively abandoning Covid patients to perish as well seem so unimaginable?

Basically, if we are fortunate and this latest wave of the disease is moderate then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and if we aren't and it's bad then there are no workable strategies left for avoiding a massacre. Draconian restrictions are over. Finished.

I'm not sure it's as "mild" as we all hope


Benedict Barclay
@BarclayBenedict
·
2m
Replying to
@BarclayBenedict
The total number of people in hospital with Covid is 4,252, which is very sharply up on 2,550 last week.

Gauteng has fallen from 72% of cases to 59%, which shows that cases are now rising faster in other provinces.

At the same time South Africa is not comparable to the UK, our vaccination rate is higher, 25% of people in SA have got HIV and therefore deficient immune systems and our level of natural immunity is also higher.

Sadly it looks like the decision has been made without actually waiting for any evidence and now because Boris has to change the national agenda we're heading towards another lockdown. The Tory party has to get rid of Boris.

numbertwelve said:

You have to wonder whether we could see cabinet resignations here. If you want out and you want to make a point to win some favours with the public, there’s worse options surely?

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

pigeon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, the worst thing from this polling is this.

Three in ten say they are less likely to follow Covid rules as a result (29%).

This rises to a third of Labour voters (33%) and those aged 18-34 (33%) who say the same.

Over half say they are just as likely to follow the rules (54%)

Whatever Boris Johnson announces tonight will be ignored by large parts of the country making us less secure.

He needs to go and be replaced by someone with the credibility and authority to launch you new Covid-19 measures.

Except it wouldn't matter if Jesus were to descend from heaven to promote any new Covid measures. First of all, the country, or a large enough fraction of it at any rate, has had enough of Covid measures and will happily ignore them if they think they can get away with it. And secondly, there's probably nothing short of a full lockdown that will do anything to seriously impede the latest version of this bloody virus, it's questionable as to whether or not even that will work, and neither the economy nor wider society can sustain an annual cycle of hokey cokey house arrest for the next thousand years.

The Government can plausibly get away with yet more masks (useless) and WFH (not useful enough,) and after that it is out of options. Reinstating large scale business support and putting about five or six million people back on furlough until various roadmap steps between April and July, let alone shutting all the schools again for the Winter, is a non-starter. And if declining to go to those lengths means, to put it bluntly, tent hospitals and doctors having to decide which Covid patient gets a ventilator and which one gets a big shot of morphine, then that's what's going to end up happening. After all, selectively abandoning non-Covid patients to perish through lack of care capacity is already a reality in the NHS. Why should selectively abandoning Covid patients to perish as well seem so unimaginable?

Basically, if we are fortunate and this latest wave of the disease is moderate then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and if we aren't and it's bad then there are no workable strategies left for avoiding a massacre. Draconian restrictions are over. Finished.

I'm not sure it's as "mild" as we all hope


Benedict Barclay
@BarclayBenedict
·
2m
Replying to
@BarclayBenedict
The total number of people in hospital with Covid is 4,252, which is very sharply up on 2,550 last week.

Gauteng has fallen from 72% of cases to 59%, which shows that cases are now rising faster in other provinces.

At the same time South Africa is not comparable to the UK, our vaccination rate is higher, 25% of people in SA have got HIV and therefore deficient immune systems and our level of natural immunity is also higher.

Sadly it looks like the decision has been made without actually waiting for any evidence and now because Boris has to change the national agenda we're heading towards another lockdown. The Tory party has to get rid of Boris.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

We were always sovereign for both. The question is if you wanted to exercise your sovereignty or not.

The English and Welsh voted to exercise their sovereignty, hence invoking Article 50.
The NI did not, hence the special arrangements.

Now if the NI wish to exercise theirs, then A16 is the right answer for them, just as it was for the UK as a whole. For the same reasons. Using the same logic.

No inconsistencies.

Excellent. So we were sovereign while in the EU: tick. And we are sovereign with this NI deal: tick.

So why all the fuss about leaving the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.

Because we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.

Not just have it in abeyance.

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

pigeon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, the worst thing from this polling is this.

Three in ten say they are less likely to follow Covid rules as a result (29%).

This rises to a third of Labour voters (33%) and those aged 18-34 (33%) who say the same.

Over half say they are just as likely to follow the rules (54%)

Whatever Boris Johnson announces tonight will be ignored by large parts of the country making us less secure.

He needs to go and be replaced by someone with the credibility and authority to launch you new Covid-19 measures.

Except it wouldn't matter if Jesus were to descend from heaven to promote any new Covid measures. First of all, the country, or a large enough fraction of it at any rate, has had enough of Covid measures and will happily ignore them if they think they can get away with it. And secondly, there's probably nothing short of a full lockdown that will do anything to seriously impede the latest version of this bloody virus, it's questionable as to whether or not even that will work, and neither the economy nor wider society can sustain an annual cycle of hokey cokey house arrest for the next thousand years.

The Government can plausibly get away with yet more masks (useless) and WFH (not useful enough,) and after that it is out of options. Reinstating large scale business support and putting about five or six million people back on furlough until various roadmap steps between April and July, let alone shutting all the schools again for the Winter, is a non-starter. And if declining to go to those lengths means, to put it bluntly, tent hospitals and doctors having to decide which Covid patient gets a ventilator and which one gets a big shot of morphine, then that's what's going to end up happening. After all, selectively abandoning non-Covid patients to perish through lack of care capacity is already a reality in the NHS. Why should selectively abandoning Covid patients to perish as well seem so unimaginable?

Basically, if we are fortunate and this latest wave of the disease is moderate then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and if we aren't and it's bad then there are no workable strategies left for avoiding a massacre. Draconian restrictions are over. Finished.

I'm not sure it's as "mild" as we all hope


Benedict Barclay
@BarclayBenedict
·
2m
Replying to
@BarclayBenedict
The total number of people in hospital with Covid is 4,252, which is very sharply up on 2,550 last week.

Gauteng has fallen from 72% of cases to 59%, which shows that cases are now rising faster in other provinces.

The report from a couple of days ago was that 76% of the admissions testing positive with Covid were incidental infections i.e. the patient was not being admitted with Covid.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

We were always sovereign for both. The question is if you wanted to exercise your sovereignty or not.

The English and Welsh voted to exercise their sovereignty, hence invoking Article 50.
The NI did not, hence the special arrangements.

Now if the NI wish to exercise theirs, then A16 is the right answer for them, just as it was for the UK as a whole. For the same reasons. Using the same logic.

No inconsistencies.

Excellent. So we were sovereign while in the EU: tick. And we are sovereign with this NI deal: tick.

So why all the fuss about leaving the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.

Because we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.

Not just have it in abeyance.

Leon said:

NerysHughes said:

Leon said:

pigeon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, the worst thing from this polling is this.

Three in ten say they are less likely to follow Covid rules as a result (29%).

This rises to a third of Labour voters (33%) and those aged 18-34 (33%) who say the same.

Over half say they are just as likely to follow the rules (54%)

Whatever Boris Johnson announces tonight will be ignored by large parts of the country making us less secure.

He needs to go and be replaced by someone with the credibility and authority to launch you new Covid-19 measures.

Except it wouldn't matter if Jesus were to descend from heaven to promote any new Covid measures. First of all, the country, or a large enough fraction of it at any rate, has had enough of Covid measures and will happily ignore them if they think they can get away with it. And secondly, there's probably nothing short of a full lockdown that will do anything to seriously impede the latest version of this bloody virus, it's questionable as to whether or not even that will work, and neither the economy nor wider society can sustain an annual cycle of hokey cokey house arrest for the next thousand years.

The Government can plausibly get away with yet more masks (useless) and WFH (not useful enough,) and after that it is out of options. Reinstating large scale business support and putting about five or six million people back on furlough until various roadmap steps between April and July, let alone shutting all the schools again for the Winter, is a non-starter. And if declining to go to those lengths means, to put it bluntly, tent hospitals and doctors having to decide which Covid patient gets a ventilator and which one gets a big shot of morphine, then that's what's going to end up happening. After all, selectively abandoning non-Covid patients to perish through lack of care capacity is already a reality in the NHS. Why should selectively abandoning Covid patients to perish as well seem so unimaginable?

Basically, if we are fortunate and this latest wave of the disease is moderate then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and if we aren't and it's bad then there are no workable strategies left for avoiding a massacre. Draconian restrictions are over. Finished.

I'm not sure it's as "mild" as we all hope


Benedict Barclay
@BarclayBenedict
·
2m
Replying to
@BarclayBenedict
The total number of people in hospital with Covid is 4,252, which is very sharply up on 2,550 last week.

Gauteng has fallen from 72% of cases to 59%, which shows that cases are now rising faster in other provinces.

The report from a couple of days ago was that 76% of the admissions testing positive with Covid were incidental infections i.e. the patient was not being admitted with Covid.

I believe that turned out to be wishful thinking bolleaux

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

We were always sovereign for both. The question is if you wanted to exercise your sovereignty or not.

The English and Welsh voted to exercise their sovereignty, hence invoking Article 50.
The NI did not, hence the special arrangements.

Now if the NI wish to exercise theirs, then A16 is the right answer for them, just as it was for the UK as a whole. For the same reasons. Using the same logic.

No inconsistencies.

Excellent. So we were sovereign while in the EU: tick. And we are sovereign with this NI deal: tick.

So why all the fuss about leaving the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.

Because we wanted to exercise our sovereignty.

Not just have it in abeyance.

Philip

I remember you telling me that the main benefit of leaving the EU was to get our sovereignty back.

Now you are telling me that we had it all the time!

So why leave?

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Endillion said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Aslan said:

Razedabode said:

For all those supporting BoJo - what success has he delivered over the last 2 years?

I am not supporting him, but he got us out of the EU, got a trade deal that protected our sovereignty more than anyone said was possible, and got us a vaccine program earlier than anyone else in Europe

The one that ended the United Kingdom as a trading block and forces GB and NI companies to have export licences to sell things to each other?

If that's protecting the sovereignty of the UK I'd hate to see what not ptotecting it looks like.

Theresa May's backstop.

Infinitely worse.

Perhaps, but isn't relevant to the argument @Aslan was promoting. He said that the current trade deal - which dissolved the UK trading area - "protected our sovereignty". I now need an export license to sell products in my own country. How has that protected our sovereignty to do things like not need an export license to trade inside our own country...

I don't need you to come back in with alternative takes on external sovereignty - you have one perspective on that, I have another. But the ending of the UK as a trading nation is indisputable - we are now split in two with GB as one trading zone and NI as another trading zone. Usually deals that protect a country's sovereignty doesn't split a chunk off it.

It did protect our sovereignty because we had Article 16 so could override it. The ending is not indisputable, we'll see what the situation is post-Article 16.

There are plenty of countries that have had chunks split off, where its convenient to do so, its far from unprecedented.

On that logic while in the EU our sovereignty was protected because we could always leave.

Either in the EU we were sovereign because we could leave and there is no compromise of sovereignty over NI because we can invoke A16; or in the EU we were not sovereign and we are not sovereign now because there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI.

You are a logical debater. Which is it; it can't be both.

We were always technically sovereign, we could only exercise that sovereignty by invoking Article 50 so we rightly did when people wanted to exercise that sovereignty.

Same deal with Article 16 - and I think it should be invoked too.

So as it stands we are not sovereign because we haven't exercised it. Is that right?

If memory serves, you've been trying variants (so to speak) of this line for a couple of years now, and I'm sorry, but I think it's a stupid argument. If we our sovereignty within the EU is only present because we have the option to leave it, then we clearly aren't sovereign while we're in it, and the fact that we assented (implicitly) to that reality is irrelevant.

He who [has to] break[s] a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.

Apology accepted. Although your point is wrong. We were always sovereign whether we decided to exercise it or not. Of course we made compromises but did so as a sovereign nation.

But that is not the point. If we were not sovereign within the EU because we hadn't "proved" it by leaving, then the NI deal means we are not sovereign because as of this moment we haven't exercised A16. It can't be both.

If you think we weren't sovereign while in the EU and aren't sovereign now because the NI deal means that there is no free movement of goods between GB and NI that is fair enough. But you can't argue for one and not the other.

I'm not sure I've followed the detail exactly, but I would argue that:

- We were not sovereign within the EU (at least not "properly")
- We still aren't, for the reason you mention
- However, the current issues are a direct result of having been in the EU until recently, in particular the mess that was Article 50, and being bound by the ridiculous prevarication by the EU during the negotiations
- Also, clearly the situation has been improved substantially by leaving the EU, and there is hope that it will improve further
- Therefore, the limits to our current sovereignty are a) acceptable in the short term, b) an improvement, and c) not material
- Also also, I don't actually care about Northern Ireland

Thank you. Yes if you believe we weren't sovereign then and aren't sovereign now that is entirely consistent. Philip, for example, believes the exact opposite. We were sovereign then and are sovereign now.

You seem also to be another person who doesn't care about Northern Ireland which is strange because it is part of the UK. Assuming you voted for the UK to leave the EU then it seems that you should be happy with NI being a de facto part of the EU. Good riddance in your book, I imagine.

You Brexiters are very funny.

Farooq said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Roger said:

Johnson is such a piece of work. Can anyone with a straight face say they've ever known a more repellent Prime Minister?

I feel sorry for Allegra Stratten. She shouldn't have had anything to do with the ghastly man but she not the first to have been attracted by power

Theresa May.
Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair.

All far more repellent.

None of them as dangerous as him, nor Thatcher and Major either.

Blair invaded Iraq, sought to be able to imprison people without trials, and abolished the ancient protection of Double Jeopardy.
Brown trashed the economy as Chancellor, and slinked off and signed the Lisbon Treaty as PM.
May tore the nation apart and tried to sign our sovereignty away with the backstop.

All far more dangerous.

Boris is the worst Prime Minister in my lifetime by a very wide margin.

That narrows down your age to within a couple of hundred years.

Leon said:

CarlottaVance said:

ARE WE MOVING TO PLAN B?

Our snap poll from today also concluded:

Working from home where possible
Support - 74%
Oppose - 10%

Vaccine-only certification for nightclubs and large gatherings
Support - 69%
Oppose - 16%

https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1468629331647905804?s=20

Jesus. Most people are going to support Lockdown 4, aren't they?

Bleak bleak bleak