I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
This is where I get to wear my smug face about having called this precice thing in this very thread two days ago except not because as usual when I'm right it's about something shitty happening.
Cassandra hated her foresight too.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
+5
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
Implementation of treaties requires law, which has to pass through the House.
+6
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
Implementation of treaties requires law, which has to pass through the House.
Oh, duh, of course. My AP US Gov teacher is surely spinning in his grave.
the Withdrawal Agreement contains a number of mechanisms and legal remedies to address violations of the legal obligations contained in the text – which the European Union will not be shy in using.
edit:
There's less than 2 months left and the UK has taken negotiations off the table by shattering whatever good faith the EU had towards the UK.
I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
Implementation of treaties requires law, which has to pass through the House.
I want to say it requires more than a simple majority to ratify a treaty in the senate as well, but I'm not sure. Not that there's any chance of something happening before the election.
I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
Implementation of treaties requires law, which has to pass through the House.
I want to say it requires more than a simple majority to ratify a treaty in the senate as well, but I'm not sure. Not that there's any chance of something happening before the election.
Just as a quick civics lesson, treaties are under the purview of the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate requires 2/3 majority to ratify the treaty or rejected the treaty.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe that previous treaties with the UK might still be in force. I don’t necessarily think that all of them were superseded by a EU treaty. Sadly this is a great opportunity for the US, there’s already a slight trade deficit between the US and UK, and this is a way to increase that another hundred billion dollars a year in favor of the US. We really shouldn’t be in the business of getting involved in North Ireland affairs.
I take it as a massive positive as just about the only thing I can see bringing this calamity of a government back to something like reality is the US using its influence to pull a Suez on the UK.
That would be pretty unlikley in this situation even if the US wasn't also drunk at the wheel.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
Implementation of treaties requires law, which has to pass through the House.
I want to say it requires more than a simple majority to ratify a treaty in the senate as well, but I'm not sure. Not that there's any chance of something happening before the election.
Just as a quick civics lesson, treaties are under the purview of the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate requires 2/3 majority to ratify the treaty or rejected the treaty.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe that previous treaties with the UK might still be in force. I don’t necessarily think that all of them were superseded by a EU treaty. Sadly this is a great opportunity for the US, there’s already a slight trade deficit between the US and UK, and this is a way to increase that another hundred billion dollars a year in favor of the US. We really shouldn’t be in the business of getting involved in North Ireland affairs.
Relevantly related, most recent trade treaties in the US have been Implemented via a fast track process, which, via details I’m vague on, does require legislation to pass through Congress.
Either way, it’s not happening. Not with the current makeup of the House and Senate, and not with pity major US parties courting the vote of the millions in the US who identify as Irish-American.
If we blow up the GFA, that US trade deal is gone.
"we cant be held responsible for things we signed in a hurry im sorry"
Waited until the last minute to do their homework, then complains about the bad grade because they were rushed, and want a redo
The government would prefer to use the Predicted Grades it was given at the end of 2019, than the results it got after things were adjusted due to the current circumstances.
The Scotland thing is easy to understand - Scotland needs the UK Gov's permission to run another official referendum, and an official one could be a disaster for both sides, but for now lets assume the worst for the SNP since that's what the the Tories/Boris and Dom are doing. It's meddled with, and the Remain side boycotts because it's not a real one etc.
Scotland leaving is now the next Parliament's problem, and probably Labour's, giving the Tories a good drum to beat in order to get things 'back to normal' in five years time (especially if Scotland leaving has swung the odds in their favour).
Look, Boris was elected to produce Brexit. And that's just what he's going to do.
(Not a good Brexit, because it's been obvious for years to anyone paying attention that there is no such thing.)
After half a billion spent on PPE from fictional companies owned by a friend of Liss Truss working in the same office, I think I'm fully signed up to the school of "There is no plan, well...there's a plan for me, but there is no plan for everyone else"
There's a huge amount of power that is being diverted to a few specific ministers, but power that will transfer any costs from businesses to lawsuits directed against the Government.
So a company can break the spirit of the law, or a minister can waive regulations, but not be liable because what was done was technically legal at the time and the fault comes from making it legal - business and MP get the cash, but the taxpayer pays the legal fees and inevitable penalty.
These are glaring issues, but why fix when you can profit and make the next guy fix them?
Look, Boris was elected to produce Brexit. And that's just what he's going to do.
(Not a good Brexit, because it's been obvious for years to anyone paying attention that there is no such thing.)
The extraordinary thing is not that they're letting Brexit happen, or that brexit is gonna suck (duh) but that their 'negotiations' are very likely to make the fallout worse than if they'd just sat on their hands and let the UK crash out by default.
That takes a particular kind of talent.
Look, Boris was elected to produce Brexit. And that's just what he's going to do.
(Not a good Brexit, because it's been obvious for years to anyone paying attention that there is no such thing.)
The extraordinary thing is not that they're letting Brexit happen, or that brexit is gonna suck (duh) but that their 'negotiations' are very likely to make the fallout worse than if they'd just sat on their hands and let the UK crash out by default.
That takes a particular kind of talent.
It does, but this depends if you're thinking for Britons in general or a few specific ones. Fucking things up for specific short term gains is easy, it's practically humanity's likely epitaph.
They're this bad on purpose. Are we judging future Labour governments by what Corbyn would do? Then they will say, why judge future Tory ones by Boris, rather than the new pro-austerity Tory candidate?
Brexit has never been good for the UK. Or even it's component parts.
Watched the latest TLDR news about all of this [SNIP] and even if I take their analysis with the large grain of salt they themselves recommend, it really sounds like Boris is trying to wreck the Union.
Is that what some of you all get the impression of as well? Whether on purpose with design or on accident due to incompetence, it feels to this outsider that he's aiming to make England as English only as possible through action and inaction.
I believe it's for the opposite reason: it's seen as the only way to preserve the United Kingdom. The backstop of the Withdrawal Agreement creates a border in the Irish Sea. There's already nearly enough support for reunification as it is - a decade of Northern Ireland freely sharing goods and movement with the Republic and not with Great Britain, and it's all but assured.
The only way to keep Northern Ireland long term British is for there to be no border between it and the rest of the UK. The only way to do that (and meet the Brexiters' demands of border control) is to break the Good Friday Agreement and have a border in Ireland.
Boris is saying that they won't break the GFA, while also saying that there'll be no hurdles in the Irish Sea, while also also saying that the UK will not be tied to the EU.
Which is impossible. You can only have two of the above.
Watched the latest TLDR news about all of this [SNIP] and even if I take their analysis with the large grain of salt they themselves recommend, it really sounds like Boris is trying to wreck the Union.
Is that what some of you all get the impression of as well? Whether on purpose with design or on accident due to incompetence, it feels to this outsider that he's aiming to make England as English only as possible through action and inaction.
I believe it's for the opposite reason: it's seen as the only way to preserve the United Kingdom. The backstop of the Withdrawal Agreement creates a border in the Irish Sea. There's already nearly enough support for reunification as it is - a decade of Northern Ireland freely sharing goods and movement with the Republic and not with Great Britain, and it's all but assured.
The only way to keep Northern Ireland long term British is for there to be no border between it and the rest of the UK. The only way to do that (and meet the Brexiters' demands of border control) is to break the Good Friday Agreement and have a border in Ireland.
Boris is saying that they won't break the GFA, while also saying that there'll be no hurdles in the Irish Sea, while also also saying that the UK will not be tied to the EU.
Which is impossible. You can only have two of the above.
They've been promising the impossible for a very long time now, why stop? This way they can blame the EU for the shitshow.
So it's sounding like the argument is being made in certain circles that trade deals and treaties are violations of parliamentary sovereignty and I absolutely cannot deal with how stupid 2020 has become.
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Watched the latest TLDR news about all of this [SNIP] and even if I take their analysis with the large grain of salt they themselves recommend, it really sounds like Boris is trying to wreck the Union.
Is that what some of you all get the impression of as well? Whether on purpose with design or on accident due to incompetence, it feels to this outsider that he's aiming to make England as English only as possible through action and inaction.
I believe it's for the opposite reason: it's seen as the only way to preserve the United Kingdom. The backstop of the Withdrawal Agreement creates a border in the Irish Sea. There's already nearly enough support for reunification as it is - a decade of Northern Ireland freely sharing goods and movement with the Republic and not with Great Britain, and it's all but assured.
The only way to keep Northern Ireland long term British is for there to be no border between it and the rest of the UK. The only way to do that (and meet the Brexiters' demands of border control) is to break the Good Friday Agreement and have a border in Ireland.
Boris is saying that they won't break the GFA, while also saying that there'll be no hurdles in the Irish Sea, while also also saying that the UK will not be tied to the EU.
Which is impossible. You can only have two of the above.
They've been promising the impossible for a very long time now, why stop? This way they can blame the EU for the shitshow.
That's what throws me about introducing this bill. Introducing this now instead of keeping on with the bad faith negotiations until December actually makes it harder to blame the EU. Not that it'd matter to the hard core supporters anyway.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The new line from a government minister this morning was that we have a deal, the withdrawal agreement is the deal, stop saying that we don't have a deal, we are just trying to negotiate another deal.
The new line from a government minister this morning was that we have a deal, the withdrawal agreement is the deal, stop saying that we don't have a deal, we are just trying to negotiate another deal.
Even by that shitpoor argument, it was the deal until we re-wrote it, now it's toilet paper.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's not like the UK has shown itself to be an untrustworthy negotiating partner who might soon be facing sanctions and penalties that would weaken it's position when it comes time to finalize this deal.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It should be approved by January.
So you know, we just need to not demonstrate ourselves to be totally untrustworthy and unable to keep to previous agreed terms for five months.
Something Something Do Tories Have Principles? Something Something
There are rumbles of various back bench rebellions on the matter, but they rarely come to much.
I can see some of the old guard with a true belief in magical inherent British moral superiority wrestling a tad with the cognitive dissonance of trying to marry that up with a blasé stated intent to break international law and renege on signed agreements.
Various rumours going round that an election might be called so if the Tories win they can say they were elected with a mandate to break international law etc
Didn't Greece basically do the same thing to get out of the austerity measures imposed by the IMF? Didn't that fail, despite the government handily winning that election?
(Am I making this up? Might not have the details right.)
Posts
Trade wars are easy to win, don'cha'no.
the trade equivalent of the great emu war
Starmer is not jumping on the hand grenade.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The US is totally drunk, but the way it's set up and given the way polling has been, Pelosi's right - Democrats having control of just the house (which is very likely) is enough to torpedo anything new. And since the stuff we present have set up is presumably with the EU, that's... basically everything.
(I don't actually know the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the house, but it seems like we're set up for a repeat of 2018)
Cassandra hated her foresight too.
Isn't ratifying treaties the purview of the Senate? Would Pelosi even have anything to do with this?
Implementation of treaties requires law, which has to pass through the House.
Oh, duh, of course. My AP US Gov teacher is surely spinning in his grave.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_1607
ending with this gem:
edit:
There's less than 2 months left and the UK has taken negotiations off the table by shattering whatever good faith the EU had towards the UK.
No, they want to have everything their way and not be bound by any rules whatsoever. The trade war is just a side effect of that.
I want to say it requires more than a simple majority to ratify a treaty in the senate as well, but I'm not sure. Not that there's any chance of something happening before the election.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Just as a quick civics lesson, treaties are under the purview of the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate requires 2/3 majority to ratify the treaty or rejected the treaty.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe that previous treaties with the UK might still be in force. I don’t necessarily think that all of them were superseded by a EU treaty. Sadly this is a great opportunity for the US, there’s already a slight trade deficit between the US and UK, and this is a way to increase that another hundred billion dollars a year in favor of the US. We really shouldn’t be in the business of getting involved in North Ireland affairs.
Relevantly related, most recent trade treaties in the US have been Implemented via a fast track process, which, via details I’m vague on, does require legislation to pass through Congress.
Either way, it’s not happening. Not with the current makeup of the House and Senate, and not with pity major US parties courting the vote of the millions in the US who identify as Irish-American.
If we blow up the GFA, that US trade deal is gone.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
The government would prefer to use the Predicted Grades it was given at the end of 2019, than the results it got after things were adjusted due to the current circumstances.
The Scotland thing is easy to understand - Scotland needs the UK Gov's permission to run another official referendum, and an official one could be a disaster for both sides, but for now lets assume the worst for the SNP since that's what the the Tories/Boris and Dom are doing. It's meddled with, and the Remain side boycotts because it's not a real one etc.
Scotland leaving is now the next Parliament's problem, and probably Labour's, giving the Tories a good drum to beat in order to get things 'back to normal' in five years time (especially if Scotland leaving has swung the odds in their favour).
(Not a good Brexit, because it's been obvious for years to anyone paying attention that there is no such thing.)
There's a huge amount of power that is being diverted to a few specific ministers, but power that will transfer any costs from businesses to lawsuits directed against the Government.
So a company can break the spirit of the law, or a minister can waive regulations, but not be liable because what was done was technically legal at the time and the fault comes from making it legal - business and MP get the cash, but the taxpayer pays the legal fees and inevitable penalty.
These are glaring issues, but why fix when you can profit and make the next guy fix them?
The extraordinary thing is not that they're letting Brexit happen, or that brexit is gonna suck (duh) but that their 'negotiations' are very likely to make the fallout worse than if they'd just sat on their hands and let the UK crash out by default.
That takes a particular kind of talent.
It does, but this depends if you're thinking for Britons in general or a few specific ones. Fucking things up for specific short term gains is easy, it's practically humanity's likely epitaph.
They're this bad on purpose. Are we judging future Labour governments by what Corbyn would do? Then they will say, why judge future Tory ones by Boris, rather than the new pro-austerity Tory candidate?
Brexit has never been good for the UK. Or even it's component parts.
I believe it's for the opposite reason: it's seen as the only way to preserve the United Kingdom. The backstop of the Withdrawal Agreement creates a border in the Irish Sea. There's already nearly enough support for reunification as it is - a decade of Northern Ireland freely sharing goods and movement with the Republic and not with Great Britain, and it's all but assured.
The only way to keep Northern Ireland long term British is for there to be no border between it and the rest of the UK. The only way to do that (and meet the Brexiters' demands of border control) is to break the Good Friday Agreement and have a border in Ireland.
Boris is saying that they won't break the GFA, while also saying that there'll be no hurdles in the Irish Sea, while also also saying that the UK will not be tied to the EU.
Which is impossible. You can only have two of the above.
They've been promising the impossible for a very long time now, why stop? This way they can blame the EU for the shitshow.
That's what throws me about introducing this bill. Introducing this now instead of keeping on with the bad faith negotiations until December actually makes it harder to blame the EU. Not that it'd matter to the hard core supporters anyway.
Even by that shitpoor argument, it was the deal until we re-wrote it, now it's toilet paper.
But it's okay!
UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan Oh yeah, taste that? That's victory, that is.
Still a lot of opportunities to fuck that up.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
So you know, we just need to not demonstrate ourselves to be totally untrustworthy and unable to keep to previous agreed terms for five months.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
There are rumbles of various back bench rebellions on the matter, but they rarely come to much.
I can see some of the old guard with a true belief in magical inherent British moral superiority wrestling a tad with the cognitive dissonance of trying to marry that up with a blasé stated intent to break international law and renege on signed agreements.
(Am I making this up? Might not have the details right.)