Occasionally, I'll open the BBC app and read something ridiculous like a cabinet minister matter-of-factly stating that the government intends to violate international law. I will then open this thread and confirm that, no, I'm not the crazy one - this shit is indeed B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
In all honesty, what can we do about it? Is there any mechanism to deal with the government deciding that international law is for suckers (in limited and specific circumstances)?
How exactly do we go out and get all these glorious post-Brexit trade deals when our reputation for upholding international agreements is utterly shattered?
By recruiting former heads of state who are the best at doing bigly trade deals! Might be another candidate along soon.
While it's a technicality, I dod wabt tonpointdo want to point out that Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia, the Head of Government.
EDIT: Damn, my phone keyboard skills frikkin suck.
Head of State for Australia remains Queen Elizabeth.
We had an opportunity to change that in 1999, but due to conservative fuckery (quel surprise), they wrote the question in a way that all but guaranteed it's defeat.
Which they can't do since the Democrats have already promised to block any UK trade deals if we break the Good Friday Agreement. Which this would most certainly do. Even if Trump wins the next election, and even if the madly spinning roulette wheel that governs his decisions lands in our favour, and even if he breaks the habit of a lifetime and follows through on an agreement without fucking it up... EVEN THEN the democrats still control enough of congress to nix any agreement which they would absolutly do to secure the vast "Americans who think they're Irish" vote.
In all honesty, what can we do about it? Is there any mechanism to deal with the government deciding that international law is for suckers (in limited and specific circumstances)?
Have an electorate that understands and cares enough about these things to punish them at the ballot box.
I also had no idea I was in lockdown until 5 minutes ago, when my father told me. (The Glasgow lockdown has been extended to my council area as of last night.)
I didn’t really have any plans this weekend, aside from quietly sobbing in the foetal position, but I’m concerned that this somehow passed me by despite my checking the news regularly.
In all honesty, what can we do about it? Is there any mechanism to deal with the government deciding that international law is for suckers (in limited and specific circumstances)?
Have an electorate that understands and cares enough about these things to punish them at the ballot box.
I'll be honest, I've always thought Brexit was going to be a clusterfuck but I sure as hell didn't see it involving us loudly stating that we'd happily flout international law to break agreements and then acting shocked when nobody seems to want agreements with us.
I love (not love) how we were all saying that a basic no-deal brexit was the default state, the worst that we could possibly end up with.
Boris: "Hold my Prosecco, I got this."
I'll be honest, I've always thought Brexit was going to be a clusterfuck but I sure as hell didn't see it involving us loudly stating that we'd happily flout international law to break agreements and then acting shocked when nobody seems to want agreements with us.
I mean, I think a lot of people saw it though. Definitely some thinking there's no way these fools are going to be able to manage any agreements post-Brexit.
It's sad to see it landing reality with another dose, yep.
An image that's stuck with me through all of this is a stout middle-aged fellow wanting/expecting/demanding to speak to the manager, cut to the front of the queue, and other special treatment. Their case/justification/negotiating position starting and ending with, "but we're England, you understand? England." And utterly failing to grasp that's not the trump card they expect it to be.
In all honesty, what can we do about it? Is there any mechanism to deal with the government deciding that international law is for suckers (in limited and specific circumstances)?
Have an electorate that understands and cares enough about these things to punish them at the ballot box.
I mean, that'll be great for the next General Election. It doesn't really help in the short/medium turn.
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
An image that's stuck with me through all of this is a stout middle-aged fellow wanting/expecting/demanding to speak to the manager, cut to the front of the queue, and other special treatment. Their case/justification/negotiating position starting and ending with, "but we're England, you understand? England." And utterly failing to grasp that's not the trump card they expect it to be.
When I was a kid I genuinely believed Britain was the best country, like the richest and most influential, and the whole world respected us and were interested in us. Because we were Britain! We were the greatest empire, which was totally a purely positive thing, and everyone knew how badass we were throughout history!
That's when I was in primary school. And it boggles my mind that there are adults who seem to still think like that.
An image that's stuck with me through all of this is a stout middle-aged fellow wanting/expecting/demanding to speak to the manager, cut to the front of the queue, and other special treatment. Their case/justification/negotiating position starting and ending with, "but we're England, you understand? England." And utterly failing to grasp that's not the trump card they expect it to be.
When I was a kid I genuinely believed Britain was the best country, like the richest and most influential, and the whole world respected us and were interested in us. Because we were Britain! We were the greatest empire, which was totally a purely positive thing, and everyone knew how badass we were throughout history!
That's when I was in primary school. And it boggles my mind that there are adults who seem to still think like that.
If anything, that attitude is even more prevalent over here. With the "bonus" that we also like to claim some of your historical badassery, by proxy as it were (but only when convenient). Since we're your natural heirs and all.
Though at this rate, we're gonna end up in the same retirement home for ex-superpowers as you and France (and Russia, I suppose), all loudly insisting that we're still important and powerful and should be given due respect and deference (while waiting for the nurse to come 'round so we're not literally sitting in our own piss and shit).
Heck, it wasn't too long ago that I had the hope (unlikely, I admit) that when our star inevitably began to decline, we'd accept the end of our empire with the same quiet dignity that you apparently had. Now it seems that attitude was not as widely held as I'd thought...
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
Got to wait and see what these full guidelines are but the initial reports of this hybrid lockdown sound properly confusing (so shocked).
But then, view it as doing something to reduce cases just enough, whilst keeping tory doners afloat and I reckon the rules will make perfect sense, I'm sure.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
So, it's not clear in what specific way the new bill is going to violate international law yet right? Some guy just admitted it definitely would do that?
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
My 18 month old nephew has a cold and went to urgent care last night because he was wheezy. They gave him an inhaler thing but also said he has to have a covid test, and until he gets a negative result everyone in this house has to isolate.
His parents have spent all morning trying to get a test appointment and the website kept erroring out. Now my brother finally gets through to be told the soonest walk-in appointment they can get is in 5 days. In Scotland. We live by Stroud.
There's people in our Cambridgeshire village who've apparently been told that Scotland is the only place with walk in appointments within the time frame of 'potentially contracted Covid' to 'contagious' and they should just isolate until the test is available. When the whole thing started I made sure we had at least two weeks of easy meals, I'd recommend doing the same with the notice that they're giving for the lockdowns and the lack of testing available.
In all honesty, what can we do about it? Is there any mechanism to deal with the government deciding that international law is for suckers (in limited and specific circumstances)?
I would have thought there was a legal one, the ministerial code was altered in 2015 to allow breaches of international law by votes from MPs, but I doubt that same protection was granted to civil servants, given that would require a seperate Act.
An image that's stuck with me through all of this is a stout middle-aged fellow wanting/expecting/demanding to speak to the manager, cut to the front of the queue, and other special treatment. Their case/justification/negotiating position starting and ending with, "but we're England, you understand? England." And utterly failing to grasp that's not the trump card they expect it to be.
When I was a kid I genuinely believed Britain was the best country, like the richest and most influential, and the whole world respected us and were interested in us. Because we were Britain! We were the greatest empire, which was totally a purely positive thing, and everyone knew how badass we were throughout history!
That's when I was in primary school. And it boggles my mind that there are adults who seem to still think like that.
There were massive issues with British historiography in the past and they unfortunately still influence popular understandings
The article from a year ago which related Brexit to British imperial history also mentions British cultural prestige overshadowing the more repulsive aspects of British history and there's some truth to that
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
"households and support bubbles bigger than six people unaffected." There's 7 people in my household. What does unaffected mean in this context. Can I have a mate over, or does it just mean the police aren't going to break up my family if we go for a walk together?
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
"households and support bubbles bigger than six people unaffected." There's 7 people in my household. What does unaffected mean in this context. Can I have a mate over, or does it just mean the police aren't going to break up my family if we go for a walk together?
It means you must set up a complex mirror maze to fool the police
Edit: this is not chat!
So actual answer: it seems like the new rule is no more than six people at any one time excluding work and households. Which is, yes, very stupid and achieves almost nothing.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
"households and support bubbles bigger than six people unaffected." There's 7 people in my household. What does unaffected mean in this context. Can I have a mate over, or does it just mean the police aren't going to break up my family if we go for a walk together?
It means you must set up a complex mirror maze to fool the police
Health secretary Matt Hancock tells @timesradio the public may not break new social distancing rules in a “limited and specific way” and adds he is comfortable with Brandon Lewis saying the UK is willing to break international law in the same way.
Apparently we're doubling down this morning on breaking international law being a-okay.
The “oh yeah? what are you going to do about it” approach to international treaties
IRRC that doesn’t always end terribly well for the belligerent nation, historically speaking
The “oh yeah? what are you going to do about it” approach to international treaties
IRRC that doesn’t always end terribly well for the belligerent nation, historically speaking
It can, if the belligerent nation has any sort of leverage whatsoever
I get the feeling that after this weekend the words ‘specific and limited’ are likely to trigger PTSD in the police who are called to break up large gatherings.
So can we all now refer to the government as a criminal government in all cases? It'd be nice if we could get the press to do that, since they've got official government (sorry, criminal government) confirmation that they are in fact criminal, which should make any slander/libel cases non-starters.
I feel like every time I read the news I want to scream. What the fuck is happening. We're facing the biggest national challenges since WWII and the government is utterly useless, worse than useless. Jesus Christ.
The “oh yeah? what are you going to do about it” approach to international treaties
IRRC that doesn’t always end terribly well for the belligerent nation, historically speaking
It can, if the belligerent nation has any sort of leverage whatsoever
Eh, debatable on that. Even if the specific incident works out favorably, you still end up getting a reputation as an untrustworthy partner, which will eventually bite you in the ass.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
So if they do this its going to stain the UK forever just like Trump has with the US - even if a sane government gets in all foreign countries need to weigh the risk the Tories will be elected again.
The US is pivotal enough they can rise above the effect, the UK is not.
Another mark in the Scottish independence column tbh, as a new state would not have this stain.
+1
Options
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
Health secretary Matt Hancock tells @timesradio the public may not break new social distancing rules in a “limited and specific way” and adds he is comfortable with Brandon Lewis saying the UK is willing to break international law in the same way.
Apparently we're doubling down this morning on breaking international law being a-okay.
You can break international law in a limited way, as a treat.
Starmer flubbed his line in today’s PMQs, which is all anyone will care about, rather than the PM’s non-answers.
I wonder if/when the government’s willingness to breach international law will be discussed during PMQ’s? The calculus might be that it’s simply not worth Starmer personally engaging with brexit matters until the shit really hits the fan.
0
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
More likely that it is better to engage once the specific text of the bill is known and therefore the implications, right now it's entirely speculative. Based on the civil service reaction, still bad, but speculative nonetheless
They've just released the text, apparently. They have a dishonest habit of letting stuff out just after PMQs to avoid Johnson getting grilled too much about it.
Ministers will be given powers to “disapply” elements of the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements in the internal markets bill published in a move that legal experts say is an “eye watering” breach of international law.
The controversial bill published this afternoon gives powers to ministers to unilaterally decide how to apply the Northern Ireland protocol in relation to checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
It also unpicks the “core” article 10 of the protocol in relation to state aid and states that it will “not be interpreted in accordance with case law of the European court” or “in accordance with any legislative act of the EU”.
This a complete contradiction of the section of the protocol which is underpinned by the “direct effect” of EU law which would enable any individual or company to rely on EU law in a local court, and which was signed off by Boris Johnson in January.
Legal academics immediately pointed to articles 42, 43, and 45 of the internal markets bill as a blunt re-writing of the protocol.
So now I'm feeling squeezed between the twin thread guidelines of 'no doomsaying' and 'no pipe dreams about the Queen stepping in'. I guess all I can hope for is that the House of Lords manages to delay this for a few weeks.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
Occasionally, I'll open the BBC app and read something ridiculous like a cabinet minister matter-of-factly stating that the government intends to violate international law. I will then open this thread and confirm that, no, I'm not the crazy one - this shit is indeed B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
So any day now, surely.
While it's a technicality, I dod wabt tonpoint do want to point out that Tony Abbott was Prime Minister of Australia, the Head of Government.
EDIT: Damn, my phone keyboard skills frikkin suck.
Head of State for Australia remains Queen Elizabeth.
We had an opportunity to change that in 1999, but due to conservative fuckery (quel surprise), they wrote the question in a way that all but guaranteed it's defeat.
Which they can't do since the Democrats have already promised to block any UK trade deals if we break the Good Friday Agreement. Which this would most certainly do. Even if Trump wins the next election, and even if the madly spinning roulette wheel that governs his decisions lands in our favour, and even if he breaks the habit of a lifetime and follows through on an agreement without fucking it up... EVEN THEN the democrats still control enough of congress to nix any agreement which they would absolutly do to secure the vast "Americans who think they're Irish" vote.
Have an electorate that understands and cares enough about these things to punish them at the ballot box.
I didn’t really have any plans this weekend, aside from quietly sobbing in the foetal position, but I’m concerned that this somehow passed me by despite my checking the news regularly.
Boris: "Hold my Prosecco, I got this."
I mean, I think a lot of people saw it though. Definitely some thinking there's no way these fools are going to be able to manage any agreements post-Brexit.
It's sad to see it landing reality with another dose, yep.
I mean, that'll be great for the next General Election. It doesn't really help in the short/medium turn.
When I was a kid I genuinely believed Britain was the best country, like the richest and most influential, and the whole world respected us and were interested in us. Because we were Britain! We were the greatest empire, which was totally a purely positive thing, and everyone knew how badass we were throughout history!
That's when I was in primary school. And it boggles my mind that there are adults who seem to still think like that.
If anything, that attitude is even more prevalent over here. With the "bonus" that we also like to claim some of your historical badassery, by proxy as it were (but only when convenient). Since we're your natural heirs and all.
Though at this rate, we're gonna end up in the same retirement home for ex-superpowers as you and France (and Russia, I suppose), all loudly insisting that we're still important and powerful and should be given due respect and deference (while waiting for the nurse to come 'round so we're not literally sitting in our own piss and shit).
Heck, it wasn't too long ago that I had the hope (unlikely, I admit) that when our star inevitably began to decline, we'd accept the end of our empire with the same quiet dignity that you apparently had. Now it seems that attitude was not as widely held as I'd thought...
Social gatherings of more than six people to be banned by law in England from Monday the 14th. Doesn't apply to schools or workplaces, of course; obviously they're immune or something...
Steam | XBL
But then, view it as doing something to reduce cases just enough, whilst keeping tory doners afloat and I reckon the rules will make perfect sense, I'm sure.
Specific and limited exceptions
Like testing your eyesight, for example.
Steam | XBL
There's people in our Cambridgeshire village who've apparently been told that Scotland is the only place with walk in appointments within the time frame of 'potentially contracted Covid' to 'contagious' and they should just isolate until the test is available. When the whole thing started I made sure we had at least two weeks of easy meals, I'd recommend doing the same with the notice that they're giving for the lockdowns and the lack of testing available.
I would have thought there was a legal one, the ministerial code was altered in 2015 to allow breaches of international law by votes from MPs, but I doubt that same protection was granted to civil servants, given that would require a seperate Act.
There were massive issues with British historiography in the past and they unfortunately still influence popular understandings
The article from a year ago which related Brexit to British imperial history also mentions British cultural prestige overshadowing the more repulsive aspects of British history and there's some truth to that
"households and support bubbles bigger than six people unaffected." There's 7 people in my household. What does unaffected mean in this context. Can I have a mate over, or does it just mean the police aren't going to break up my family if we go for a walk together?
It means you must set up a complex mirror maze to fool the police
Edit: this is not chat!
So actual answer: it seems like the new rule is no more than six people at any one time excluding work and households. Which is, yes, very stupid and achieves almost nothing.
The real trick is growing the third nipple
Apparently we're doubling down this morning on breaking international law being a-okay.
IRRC that doesn’t always end terribly well for the belligerent nation, historically speaking
It can, if the belligerent nation has any sort of leverage whatsoever
I'm sure these new restrictions will be followed to the letter....
Obviously the government saying it's gonna break the law itself the night before has nothing to do with it.
How convenient the new measures don't take place until next week.
Eh, debatable on that. Even if the specific incident works out favorably, you still end up getting a reputation as an untrustworthy partner, which will eventually bite you in the ass.
The US is pivotal enough they can rise above the effect, the UK is not.
Another mark in the Scottish independence column tbh, as a new state would not have this stain.
You can break international law in a limited way, as a treat.
I wonder if/when the government’s willingness to breach international law will be discussed during PMQ’s? The calculus might be that it’s simply not worth Starmer personally engaging with brexit matters until the shit really hits the fan.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So now I'm feeling squeezed between the twin thread guidelines of 'no doomsaying' and 'no pipe dreams about the Queen stepping in'. I guess all I can hope for is that the House of Lords manages to delay this for a few weeks.