UK legal head resigns

[Octavious]

Oct, did you even read it? Nowhere did I claim Tories are evil, merely the implication that Johnson is influenced by his donors (I mean, they wouldn't be donating millions if they didn't think it would have an influence, right?)

You didn't use those words, but collapsing an economy deliberately so you can profit from short selling shares is a traditional evil act. You profit from the hardship of others. It is not something that you do whilst claiming to be one of the good guys. Honestly, mate, saying that you didn't claim the Tories are evil here is akin to describing a man rampaging through a city randomly shooting people, and then insisting you never actually called him a murderer .

Also, the Tories can claim, as you seem to have above, that it is in the UK's best interest, and get unity that way... Given that you already accept this narrative, perhaps you can explain how any of this is actually good?

You'll have to remind me where in this thread I said this was a good thing that I supported. I do wish people would stop inventing my views and then arguing against them. I am, as I have said a number of times now, a Lib Dem. I have voted Lib Dem in the last two elections (at least I would have done if my Lib Dem candidate hadn't been withdrawn in favour of the Green Party in the last election). My argument was, and I believe it was extremely clearly written, that this is merely end of negotiation theatrics. It will not happen, there will be a deal. My personal view is that even the threat of it is a poor idea and has an impact upon national reputations, but such is life.

Still, I will ask again, what is your theory?

As I have said a number of times, and indeed flash has said, it's negotiation tactics. An extra lever to move a deal into place. The EU can say "we may have lost a bit of ground on fishing, but we ensured peace in Northern Ireland" even though it was never really at risk. The EU loves this kind of argument. You will observe that EU proponents repeatedly insist that the EU has apparently prevented Europe descending into another major war, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that any of the members had the slightest inclination to start one.

(I mean, they wouldn't be donating millions if they didn't think it would have an influence, right?)

Are you a Diplomacy player or not? Without leverage there is no influence. Once the money has been paid the leverage is gone. The donors donated to keep Corbyn out, and they succeeded. End of influence.

Now, you could possibly argue that the promise of future money would provide some leverage (not a lot, of course, as these kind of promises aren't worth all that much). But then you have to weigh the benefits of extra cash against the cons of making a massive public fuck up, and it ain't worth it. It ain't even close to being worth it. We are talking jumping off a cliff to get to the beach faster levels of not worth it.

[Jamiet99uk]

These are awful "negotiation tactics" if that's what they are. Do you really think it's a good approach to negotiation, to show the world that you are untrustworthy, that you don't give a shit about your promises, and that you'll gleefully breach any agreement that you sign?

Who would want to negotiate with a prick like that?

And yes, every member of Boris's front bench is either evil or incompetent, or both. I truly believe that. Boris himself is a deeply evil individual. They care only for their own power and wealth and gain. They do not care about the people. That should be crystal clear by now.

[Jamiet99uk]

But then when have the Tories ever cared about the people, other than as a source of votes and labour? The Tories are a party with two goals - to protect the wealth and privilege of the few, and to keep the masses subdued.

[flash2015]

These are awful "negotiation tactics" if that's what they are. Do you really think it's a good approach to negotiation, to show the world that you are untrustworthy, that you don't give a shit about your promises, and that you'll gleefully breach any agreement that you sign?

Who would want to negotiate with a prick like that?

And yes, every member of Boris's front bench is either evil or incompetent, or both. I truly believe that. Boris himself is a deeply evil individual. They care only for their own power and wealth and gain. They do not care about the people. That should be crystal clear by now.

I can understand your frustration about Brexit. I think it is a poor decision that will come back to bite the UK over time. But like it or not, the last election result means that it will happen and the UK needs to somehow make the best of it.

Boris promised he could get a better deal than May. And he has also got to placate a significant minority of the population that believe that "no deal" is better than the current deal that the EU is offering. Politically saying "sorry, I lied, this is the best we can do" is not an option. What other leverage do you think he could use to get a better deal with the EU? What other options do you see he has?

[Jamiet99uk]

These are awful "negotiation tactics" if that's what they are. Do you really think it's a good approach to negotiation, to show the world that you are untrustworthy, that you don't give a shit about your promises, and that you'll gleefully breach any agreement that you sign?

Who would want to negotiate with a prick like that?

And yes, every member of Boris's front bench is either evil or incompetent, or both. I truly believe that. Boris himself is a deeply evil individual. They care only for their own power and wealth and gain. They do not care about the people. That should be crystal clear by now.

I can understand your frustration about Brexit. I think it is a poor decision that will come back to bite the UK over time. But like it or not, the last election result means that it will happen and the UK needs to somehow make the best of it.

Boris promised he could get a better deal than May. And he has also got to placate a significant minority of the population that believe that "no deal" is better than the current deal that the EU is offering. Politically saying "sorry, I lied, this is the best we can do" is not an option. What other leverage do you think he could use to get a better deal with the EU? What other options do you see he has?

You misunderstand my post.

The British Government *has* announced that it is going to break International Law in respect of the Transition Agreement, specifically with regard to its provisions concerning the status of Northern Ireland. So, Boris's Government has made a public announcement that it is going to break its promises to the EU.

[Octavious]

We shall find out whether they are awful tactics or not after the negotiations are concluded. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this particular drama was agreed by both sides prior to the media being informed.

As for being someone the EU wishes to negotiate with, I'm afraid the EU doesn't have any option. It's fair to say that if you are someone the EU enjoys negotiating with, it probably means you're a chump. Not being the EU's flavour of the month is no bad thing. Although I have heard that Boris and Macron get on extremely well.

Thank you for confirming that you view the Tories as evil, though. Always helps to make these things clear.

@flash
There was an exciting opportunity to demonstrate your lack of bias by criticising Jamie's "Fuck you, bollocks" style of debate earlier. I note that you chose not to

[Jamiet99uk]

Of course they are evil. They are also astonishingly corrupt. The Covid crisis has been used by Ministers to hand millions of pounds to their friends, relatives, and cronies by systematically breaching public procurement rules.

Source: I am a procurement manager working in a UK Government agency.

[taylor4]

The default Brexit position is a "hard border" betweeen Northern Ireland & the Irish Republic.
So, today the Guardian has an Opinion article by an Irish Times writer pointing to the USA Congress - Representive Neal, chairman of the Ways & Means committee, September 8th issued a statement denouncing any hard border outcome - such an outcome shall sink a putative USA-UK bilateral trade agreement.
In this Neal is supported by Speaker Pelosi, according to The Irish TImes.

[Jamiet99uk]

The Rule of Law means nothing to these people. Now even the USA sneers at us. Disgusting.

[taylor4]

[In the UK, a-k-a 'evil yet Logical empiricists'] 'Lord Howard, who was Conservative leader between 2003 and 2005, said [in urgent Lords' debate today that] the [Internal Market] bill would damage the UK's "reputation for probity and respect for the rule of law".
'He said Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis's admission that it would breach international law were "words which I never thought I would hear uttered by a British minister - far less a Conservative minister".
'He asked: "How can we reproach Russia or China or Iran when their conduct falls below internationally accepted standards when we are showing such scant regard for our treaty obligations?"' - BBC
In 'classic' Dip parlance - a stab.

[flash2015]

Also, the Tories can claim, as you seem to have above, that it is in the UK's best interest, and get unity that way... Given that you already accept this narrative, perhaps you can explain how any of this is actually good?

You'll have to remind me where in this thread I said this was a good thing that I supported. I do wish people would stop inventing my views and then arguing against them. I am, as I have said a number of times now, a Lib Dem. I have voted Lib Dem in the last two elections (at least I would have done if my Lib Dem candidate hadn't been withdrawn in favour of the Green Party in the last election). My argument was, and I believe it was extremely clearly written, that this is merely end of negotiation theatrics. It will not happen, there will be a deal. My personal view is that even the threat of it is a poor idea and has an impact upon national reputations, but such is life.

To be fair, given what you wrote on the first page I don't believe it was unreasonable for orathaic (or others) to assume that you didn't see anything wrong with what Boris is doing. If you had said that last sentence upfront then there would not have been any confusion.

[flash2015]

@flash
There was an exciting opportunity to demonstrate your lack of bias by criticising Jamie's "Fuck you, bollocks" style of debate earlier. I note that you chose not to

This is Jamie just letting out his frustration. You don't seem to be terribly bothered by it and it hasn't derailed the thread so why should I be concentrating on it?

At least IMHO it seems more constructive to ask him to expand on his opinions so I can better understand what he thinks is best rather than getting fixated on this.

[orathaic]

Further, I am somewhere between bemused and shocked to see the Scottish govt is also pissed off because this goes against promises to devolved assemblies/govt to include them in decisions on issues which have been devolved. The Scottish being handed a reason to take the Conservative govt to court, and possibly reject laws passed in Westminster (or handing the SNP another bullet for their mission of ending the Union...)

And even more surprisingly, the Welsh just gained over 10% in favour ofv independence... (from ~18% to ~30%?) which, you know, if Scotland leaves and demonstrates a successful route... Wales now seems more likely to join them.

Which, if it is the Tories goal, would be shockingly poor... I mean, the Tories would win an impressive majority without Scotland or Wales (even while paying for NI to continue in Union...)

[flash2015]

You are right that this all increases the risk of Scotland/Wales wanting to leave the Union in the future. I find it hard to believe that is the goal though.

The UK still likes to believe it is a major power. Independence for Scotland/Wales would make the UK even less relevant.

[Octavious]

@flash
There was an exciting opportunity to demonstrate your lack of bias by criticising Jamie's "Fuck you, bollocks" style of debate earlier. I note that you chose not to

This is Jamie just letting out his frustration. You don't seem to be terribly bothered by it and it hasn't derailed the thread so why should I be concentrating on it?

At least IMHO it seems more constructive to ask him to expand on his opinions so I can better understand what he thinks is best rather than getting fixated on this.

[Octavious]

Which, if it is the Tories goal, would be shockingly poor... I mean, the Tories would win an impressive majority without Scotland or Wales (even while paying for NI to continue in Union...)

Come on, ora, return to the real world for a brief spell. Of course it isn't the Tories goal. It's as ludicrous as saying Sinn Feign's goal is to create Irish unity by rejoining the UK .

Besides which, it doesn't work. Parties naturally orbit the centre. Take Scotland out of the equation and all that changes is that the centre shifts slightly. The orbits of the major parties wobbles slightly, and you go return to the usual back and forth in no time.

[orathaic]

@Octavious, I believe you will find parties push the conversation and move the centre.

Did Corbyn or Sanders have a bigger effect on their respective lefts? Pulling the centerists towards their positions by simply putting their brands on the table?

But regardless. If Johnson isn't trying to dissolve the union, while blaming it on others... Was this just pure incompetence? (my money is on Scottish Independence within 10 years).

[Octavious]

Did Corbyn or Sanders have a bigger effect on their respective lefts? Pulling the centerists towards their positions by simply putting their brands on the table?

I don't know much about what Sanders achieved. All Corbyn managed was to make Labour unelectable. He shifted his party to the left and, just like in the past when Labour have done this, managed to lose a hell of a lot of votes. Parties do indeed attempt to move the centre, but that movement is very gradual. I am unaware of any notable shift in the British centre in recent years that Corbyn might put a claim to.

[orathaic]

I think Corbyn failed on the issue of Brexit, not how left he was. (that and the media being owned by wealthy people too afraid of his brand of socialism). Corbyn lost Labour voters who wanted to leave the EU, at a time when he wanted to leave but was defined by his opposition to the nationalist right's version Brexit.

He also likely lost some voters (to the lib Dems) who wanted to remain, because of his half hearted efforts to remain.

Sanders on the other hand, has built a grassroots movement which Biden is attempting to win over... He may not mean any of the things he promises them, but he is talking a lot more left than, say, Hillary did 4 years ago.

[Octavious]

You reckon? The split between pro and anti Brexit Brits was approximately 50/50 (with some evidence suggesting remaining had achieved a slight edge). At the time of the election Corbyn had finally adopted the previously Lib Dem stance of offering a 2nd referendum. The difference between Boris and Corbyn was that Boris' more central stance allowed left leaning Brexiters to hold their nose and vote for him, whilst Corbyn's hard left stance prevented many right leaning Remainers voting for him. If Labour had been led by Starmer at the time the result would have been very different.

In terms of the media, there is very little bias on the British TV media, and there is a wide selection of left supporting newspapers. People are not forced to read the Mail. The do so because they want to. The Guardian, Independent, Mirror etc are easily available.