|
Post by gazz on Sept 9, 2020 7:04:12 GMT
Now I am totally disenfranchised. I couldn’t even bring myself to vote for either side in the last election. I do get where you're coming from, but if you've had enough then do something about it, mate. You had the opportunity to try to help change it and you stayed at home, surely you can see the problem here?
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Sept 9, 2020 8:23:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by archie on Sept 9, 2020 9:29:05 GMT
It seems likely that, given the example set by government, there will be specific and limited disregard for these regulations, not least in the area of Barnard Castle.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Sept 9, 2020 9:35:50 GMT
It seems likely that, given the example set by government, there will be specific and limited disregard for these regulations, not least in the area of Barnard Castle.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Sept 10, 2020 11:28:39 GMT
An interesting piece turned up in my MSN news feed just now, from the FT, no less. However, they're subscription only, so I've had to copy the article directly from my feed to share it here:Post-Brexit Britain must respect the rule of law
by Philip Stephens - The Financial Times - 10 September 2020
Casting around for a new post-Brexit role in the world, Boris Johnson’s government has been presenting the UK as a champion of liberal democracy. Ministers talk about convening a new “club of democracies”, adding nations such as Japan and Australia to the existing G7 group. They have overlooked something. Raising the standard for democracy requires a commitment to the rule of law.
When the UK voted in 2016 to leave the EU, the reaction in other European capitals was one of profound shock. Britain, other political leaders said, was a nation of pragmatists. Others might be carried away by emotions, but the Brits were ruled by their heads. What happened in the Brexit vote, they asked, to the careful, cautious calculation that had defined the country as one of the world’s most stable democracies?
There was a similar intake of breath this week when a minister told the House of Commons that the government intended to give itself the right to break international law by unilaterally revising the exit treaty it signed last year with the EU. As if it somehow exonerated the government, the Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis promised, absurdly, that this lawbreaking would be in a “specific and limited way”. More “specific and limited”, one wonders, than breaches that saw Russia annex Crimea or China discard treaty pledges to uphold, well, the rule of law in Hong Kong?
The occasion for this repudiation of the rules-based international system is the possibility — some say probability — that Britain and the EU27 will fail to reach an accord on their future trade and relationship before transitional arrangements expire at the end of December. Mr Johnson thinks that in those circumstances the special provisions for Northern Ireland enshrined in the 2019 withdrawal agreement might prove too onerous.
So the government intends to “overwrite” in domestic legislation the section of the deal that regulates trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ministers have been briefed to say the change would safeguard the Good Friday peace agreement between the province and the Irish Republic. Officials in the legal service privately counter it was driven by the prime minister’s ideological objections to a residual EU role in British affairs post-Brexit. The head of the service, Jonathan Jones, resigned in protest at the decision.
Britain claims a special attachment to liberal democracy. The author of Magna Carta and habeas corpus, it likes to style itself the mother of parliaments. Britain’s boast is that respect for the rule of law, essential for the operation of democracy, is woven into the very fabric of its unwritten constitution.
The reputation of the British courts for unshakeable independence and incorruptibility have made London a global centre for litigation — a place where all comers can benefit from the integrity of the judicial system without fear of political interference.
Legal services have been a valuable export — both in financial and soft power terms. It does the nation no harm when even autocrats choose to settle their differences in British courts.
A long tradition of support for the international rule of law has served Britain well abroad. The physical and economic security of the UK are rooted in global engagement. As a significant but medium-sized power with commercial and security interests in most corners of the globe, Britain is an obvious beneficiary of a law-based system to safeguard those interests. After the first world war it championed a new Permanent Court of Justice, a forerunner of today’s International Court of Justice.
Mr Johnson is unimpressed by such history. For the prime minister, what matters is getting his way. He showed this last year when he broke the law by proroguing parliament to defuse opposition to his Brexit strategy. It was left to the Supreme Court to haul him back into line. Senior Whitehall officials say the experience has not tempered the prime minister’s impatience with anything that obstructs his approach. The potential complications for Northern Ireland of a failure to reach an overall trade deal were known before the withdrawal agreement was signed. Mr Johnson put his hands over his ears: it could be sorted out later. Never mind this “sorting out” risks destabilising the Irish peace agreement and irrevocably tarnishing Britain’s reputation.
Conservative colleagues, including Theresa May, the predecessor he ousted from Downing Street, have also pointed out that Mr Johnson is squandering the trust that Britain needs to secure good post-Brexit trade deals with other nations such as the US, Canada and Australia. Why should they trust Britain to keep its side of the bargain?
While important commercially, these are trivial issues compared to the message sent about Britain’s national character and identity, and how it will conduct itself outside of the EU. Respect for the rule of law is the vital line of separation between democracy and authoritarianism. Britain has been a prolific signer of treaties — the Foreign Office counts more than 13,000 since the 1830s. Each one has carried a kite mark testifying to an unshakeable commitment of the rule of law. The signs Mr Johnson now proposes to hoist over the cliffs of Dover might as well read: “Welcome to Britain, a nation no longer to be trusted.”
|
|
|
Post by bringbacklenwhite on Sept 10, 2020 13:53:26 GMT
Moonshot ? I can think of the first pilot to be nominated for this !
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Sept 14, 2020 19:16:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 19:55:45 GMT
Ed Milliband demonstrates what an utter tw@ Johnson is
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Sept 14, 2020 20:30:52 GMT
Ed Milliband demonstrates what an utter tw@ Johnson is
|
|
|
Post by bringbacklenwhite on Sept 14, 2020 20:50:16 GMT
They ought to make Milliband the labour leader ......................
Ooops !!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 4:25:12 GMT
An interesting piece turned up in my MSN news feed just now, from the FT, no less. However, they're subscription only, so I've had to copy the article directly from my feed to share it here:Post-Brexit Britain must respect the rule of law
by Philip Stephens - The Financial Times - 10 September 2020
Casting around for a new post-Brexit role in the world, Boris Johnson’s government has been presenting the UK as a champion of liberal democracy. Ministers talk about convening a new “club of democracies”, adding nations such as Japan and Australia to the existing G7 group. They have overlooked something. Raising the standard for democracy requires a commitment to the rule of law.
When the UK voted in 2016 to leave the EU, the reaction in other European capitals was one of profound shock. Britain, other political leaders said, was a nation of pragmatists. Others might be carried away by emotions, but the Brits were ruled by their heads. What happened in the Brexit vote, they asked, to the careful, cautious calculation that had defined the country as one of the world’s most stable democracies?
There was a similar intake of breath this week when a minister told the House of Commons that the government intended to give itself the right to break international law by unilaterally revising the exit treaty it signed last year with the EU. As if it somehow exonerated the government, the Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis promised, absurdly, that this lawbreaking would be in a “specific and limited way”. More “specific and limited”, one wonders, than breaches that saw Russia annex Crimea or China discard treaty pledges to uphold, well, the rule of law in Hong Kong?
The occasion for this repudiation of the rules-based international system is the possibility — some say probability — that Britain and the EU27 will fail to reach an accord on their future trade and relationship before transitional arrangements expire at the end of December. Mr Johnson thinks that in those circumstances the special provisions for Northern Ireland enshrined in the 2019 withdrawal agreement might prove too onerous.
So the government intends to “overwrite” in domestic legislation the section of the deal that regulates trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ministers have been briefed to say the change would safeguard the Good Friday peace agreement between the province and the Irish Republic. Officials in the legal service privately counter it was driven by the prime minister’s ideological objections to a residual EU role in British affairs post-Brexit. The head of the service, Jonathan Jones, resigned in protest at the decision.
Britain claims a special attachment to liberal democracy. The author of Magna Carta and habeas corpus, it likes to style itself the mother of parliaments. Britain’s boast is that respect for the rule of law, essential for the operation of democracy, is woven into the very fabric of its unwritten constitution.
The reputation of the British courts for unshakeable independence and incorruptibility have made London a global centre for litigation — a place where all comers can benefit from the integrity of the judicial system without fear of political interference.
Legal services have been a valuable export — both in financial and soft power terms. It does the nation no harm when even autocrats choose to settle their differences in British courts.
A long tradition of support for the international rule of law has served Britain well abroad. The physical and economic security of the UK are rooted in global engagement. As a significant but medium-sized power with commercial and security interests in most corners of the globe, Britain is an obvious beneficiary of a law-based system to safeguard those interests. After the first world war it championed a new Permanent Court of Justice, a forerunner of today’s International Court of Justice.
Mr Johnson is unimpressed by such history. For the prime minister, what matters is getting his way. He showed this last year when he broke the law by proroguing parliament to defuse opposition to his Brexit strategy. It was left to the Supreme Court to haul him back into line. Senior Whitehall officials say the experience has not tempered the prime minister’s impatience with anything that obstructs his approach. The potential complications for Northern Ireland of a failure to reach an overall trade deal were known before the withdrawal agreement was signed. Mr Johnson put his hands over his ears: it could be sorted out later. Never mind this “sorting out” risks destabilising the Irish peace agreement and irrevocably tarnishing Britain’s reputation.
Conservative colleagues, including Theresa May, the predecessor he ousted from Downing Street, have also pointed out that Mr Johnson is squandering the trust that Britain needs to secure good post-Brexit trade deals with other nations such as the US, Canada and Australia. Why should they trust Britain to keep its side of the bargain?
While important commercially, these are trivial issues compared to the message sent about Britain’s national character and identity, and how it will conduct itself outside of the EU. Respect for the rule of law is the vital line of separation between democracy and authoritarianism. Britain has been a prolific signer of treaties — the Foreign Office counts more than 13,000 since the 1830s. Each one has carried a kite mark testifying to an unshakeable commitment of the rule of law. The signs Mr Johnson now proposes to hoist over the cliffs of Dover might as well read: “Welcome to Britain, a nation no longer to be trusted.”
An interesting piece, undermined somewhat by rather lazy references to Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus. Given the volume of work made public by the recent anniversary of Magna Carta I find it difficult to believe that it is still referenced like this. As for Habeas Corpus? The Tories have a history with that. Pitt infamously suspended it towards the end of the 18th century when it suited him and his party and it has been challenged regularly over the years. What I also find curious in pieces like this is their consistent refusal to recognise the influence of Thomas Paine from Thetford in Norfolk who's treatise The Rights of Man was written to counter the anti-revolutionary arguments of Edmund Burke, widely recognised as the founder of the modern Tory Party in his piece Reflections on the Revolution in France. His arguments with Burke led to him fleeing to France after charges of seditious libel were made against him. Paine counted Benjamin Franklin amongst his friends and his work was influential in the forming of both American and French constitutions indeed, it has been suggested that without his pamphlet Common Sense, the American Revolution would not have taken place. However, the most dangerous assumption made by the article is the continued peddling of the myth that this country is somehow democratic. I guess it depends on what you want to compare it to but for anyone interested I'd suggest as a starter reading Democracy and its Crisis by A.C. Grayling or, if you want to be really depressed about where we are heading try Democracy for Sale by Peter Geoghegen a journalist working for Open Democracy and if you want to know where much of the money comes from and the extent to which corporate interest overrides anything else in our "democracy" try The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Soshana Zuboff.
|
|
|
Post by hatter_in_macc on Sept 19, 2020 11:35:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Sept 19, 2020 12:20:35 GMT
This was sublime: “New phone, who dis?”Another superb piece, cheers for posting, Maccy.
|
|
|
Post by hatter_in_macc on Sept 19, 2020 12:53:36 GMT
The coffee-spilling moment for me arrived on reading this para... There is zero uncertainty about childcare and loss of earnings in the Rees-Mogg household, where even the adults still have nannies. (At the age of 51, Jacob retains the live-in childcare professional who was – formerly? – responsible for wiping his backside.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2020 11:52:54 GMT
The coffee-spilling moment for me arrived on reading this para... There is zero uncertainty about childcare and loss of earnings in the Rees-Mogg household, where even the adults still have nannies. (At the age of 51, Jacob retains the live-in childcare professional who was – formerly? – responsible for wiping his backside.)
Have another coffee spilling moment mate. Poor old Boris Johnson has been complaining that he now worries about money, that he can no longer afford a house-keeper. What's the cause of his sudden penury? Apparently, since he had to give up his job as a Telegraph hack journalist in which he "earned" £275000 pa or nearly £2300 ph fabricating stories about EU intentions to legislate the bend in banana's and generally writing with the kind of one-eyed, self-pitying euroscepticism that characterises much Brexiteer "thought" he's had to rely on his £150000 a year salary from politics. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. This whingeing tosser is our Prime Minister! With increasing numbers of even his own party turning on him as they begin to recognise him as the complete waste of breath he is I can't help thinking it's his opening shot at baling out before the sh*t really hits the fan with a second lockdown followed by the impending chaos of Brexit that, despite 4 years to plan this country remains so far away from ready for, its embarrassing.
|
|