Brexit Begins

[Khendraja'aro]

Eh?

The absolute number of cases coming back are going up with testing numbers going up, they've gone marginally down but its still stable.

The serological survey shows infection numbers are stable.

The proportion of cases coming back positive are not going up.

Yeah, and that's where a knowledge of how your language works would once again have helped you: "The numbers are up" is so broad as to be meaningless. As evidenced by the fact that you just needed three sentences to explain what you meant by "numbers".

[RandBlade]

Yeah, and that's where a knowledge of how your language works would once again have helped you: "The numbers are up" is so broad as to be meaningless. As evidenced by the fact that you just needed three sentences to explain what you meant by "numbers".

No, its not a linguistic issue - it is simply a complicated situation. Hence why I gave data and charts in my post too, as well as citing sources.

If you wish to either play dumb, or be dumb, then I can't help that.

[Flixy]

Yeah, and that's where a knowledge of how your language works would once again have helped you: "The numbers are up" is so broad as to be meaningless. As evidenced by the fact that you just needed three sentences to explain what you meant by "numbers".

To be fair, he did include a graph of percentage of positive tests which looks low and stable (data up to two weeks ago). Have to say it almost looks suspiciously low So if those numbers mean what I think they mean, that's good news.

[Aimless]

To be fair, he did include a graph of percentage of positive tests which looks low and stable (data up to two weeks ago). Have to say it almost looks suspiciously low So if those numbers mean what I think they mean, that's good news.

You're right to be suspicious. The illustration of %pos shows %pos in hospital, not in the community. The 2,000 new cases/day is a modeled estimate for England, with an upper bound for 95% CI at 5,200 new cases daily. The positivity rate for community samples in England is estimated at about 2.5% or so.

[Hazir]

Well that was fun today; de Pfeffel trying to strong arm the EU and winding up with a severe dislocation. It's what you get when small dogs try to fight big dogs; in the beginning they feel like they are a match. But before long it all ends in humiliation.

[RandBlade]

I wouldn't get overexcited about anything right now, we're back in the phony war phase before the real negotiations begin.

My prediction still is that we will get a deal along the lines of what the UK is asking for, there's just two sticking points left and the UK's request is reasonable in both so I doubt it'll be rejected in the end.
Fish: Norway style solution. If its good enough for a Single Market member outside the CFP, there's really no reason its not good enough for us. No CFP quotas.
Level Playing Field: Canada style solution, for a Canada style free trade agreement. Likely with a non-regression clause. No dynamic alignment.

I don't think No Deal will happen as I don't see any logic for the EU not to compromise - but if it happens then that's cool.

[Flixy]

You're right to be suspicious. The illustration of %pos shows %pos in hospital, not in the community. The 2,000 new cases/day is a modeled estimate for England, with an upper bound for 95% CI at 5,200 new cases daily. The positivity rate for community samples in England is estimated at about 2.5% or so.

That's a weird stat to include then.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-cases-hancock

Hancock dismissed the idea that the increase in cases was largely down to more testing, saying the figure for so-called test positivity – the proportion of tests that show someone does have Covid-19 – was also going up.

Apparently that is also going up, which is not a good sign.

[Being]

...
Level Playing Field: Canada style solution, for a Canada style free trade agreement.

How many trees can the UK use as leverage?

[RandBlade]

The positivity rate going up is concerning, until recently it has been flat. That's newer data than the source I quoted.

[Aimless]

The everlasting present of English politics:

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Big deal, and very embarrassing for England. Contrary to popular belief, pacta sunt servanda doesn't contain an England-shaped hole.

[RandBlade]

No big deal. Appointed by Dominic Grieves it seems so I wonder about his supposed impartiality, but he can be replaced quite easily.

The Withdrawal Agreement was vague in some areas, all the UK is doing is tidying it up in domestic law. Entirely appropriate.

[Aimless]

No big deal. Appointed by Dominic Grieves it seems so I wonder about his supposed impartiality, but he can be replaced quite easily.

The Withdrawal Agreement was vague in some areas, all the UK is doing is tidying it up in domestic law. Entirely appropriate.

Like I said, you're the British version of a Trumpist, with these asinine deep state conspiracy theories and your pathetic attempts to denigrate highly regarded and deeply conscientious civil servants you have no character, and so you have difficulties dealing with people who do have character. The UK is planning to renege on its obligations under an agreement it agreed to, in violation of international law. At the very least, it shows that the UK is led by incompetent idiots—but the rest of the world will interpret this as a sign that the UK is led by incompetent and mendacious idiots. Senior civil servants don't resign like this unless it's about something very significant and concerning. Literally every single competent observer who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass like a low-rent Trumpist pundit on Fox recognizes this for the hugely embarrassing slap in the face that it is; only people lacking in character and integrity think it's no big deal for a govt to show its ass like this.

[Aimless]

"we're only breaking the law a little"

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

Entirely reasonable and following precedent as he says.

[Aimless]

Entirely reasonable and following precedent as he says.

It's not reasonable, which is why respected jurists have clearly repudiated this move. I suspect a careful analysis of the purported precedents will show either that they are not comparable, or that they were equally questionable.

[Hazir]

It's not reasonable, which is why respected jurists have clearly repudiated this move. I suspect a careful analysis of the purported precedents will show either that they are not comparable, or that they were equally questionable.

What is fun here, is that it is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

[Aimless]

What is fun here, is that it is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Do you think it would get to that point? Tbf, it's significant enough for NI & Ireland that they might pursue it.

[RandBlade]

What is fun here, is that it is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

What is fun, is that no it is not.

[Khendraja'aro]

What is fun, is that no it is not.

Dude. How do you not graps that breaking such agreements even in the tiniest of bits does make you a pariah internationally when it comes to any kind of future agreement?

How is anyone supposed to trust you on anything you sign up to?

[Aimless]

What is fun, is that no it is not.

The CJEU will have jurisdiction over most issues pertaining to the governance & enforcement of the WA, as the UK agreed. So there's a very high likelihood that issues arising from this pathetic attempt to violate international law will indeed be referred to the CJEU.

[gogobongopop]

Entirely reasonable and following precedent as he says.

Could you please explain, for the layman like me, why it is both reasonable and within precedent?

AFAIK the circumstances haven't changed and our government were praising this treaty a few months ago.

I wonder if you would react in the same way if the EU played the same card.

[Hazir]

The CJEU will have jurisdiction over most issues pertaining to the governance & enforcement of the WA, as the UK agreed. So there's a very high likelihood that issues arising from this pathetic attempt to violate international law will indeed be referred to the CJEU.

Indeed, any other conclusion would have been ludicrous. He could have known of course by the simple fact that the WA is based in article 50 TEU, but he never bothers to think for himself in matters relating to the EU.

[RandBlade]

Could you please explain, for the layman like me, why it is both reasonable and within precedent?

AFAIK the circumstances haven't changed and our government were praising this treaty a few months ago.

I wonder if you would react in the same way if the EU played the same card.

Certainly.

Reasonable: What was agreed in the WA was left deliberately vague and for the Joint Committee to clear up. The Joint Committee on certain issues hasn't actually reached a decision yet, which means there would be a void in the law. The WA doesn't explain what should happen if the Joint Committee doesn't reach an agreement and this is the final relevant act to be passed before the end of the transition so that is why the government is clearing up these issues - as otherwise there'd be a void in the law.

Within precedent: Countries have the power to overwrite international law where they need to do so, to either (like here) clear up ambiguities or for other reasons. For example the UK did so in 2013 with the Finance Act which was voted through with both the Tory and Lib Dem parties in the Coalition.

[gogobongopop]

Certainly.

Reasonable: What was agreed in the WA was left deliberately vague and for the Joint Committee to clear up. The Joint Committee on certain issues hasn't actually reached a decision yet, which means there would be a void in the law. The WA doesn't explain what should happen if the Joint Committee doesn't reach an agreement and this is the final relevant act to be passed before the end of the transition so that is why the government is clearing up these issues - as otherwise there'd be a void in the law.

Within precedent: Countries have the power to overwrite international law where they need to do so, to either (like here) clear up ambiguities or for other reasons. For example the UK did so in 2013 with the Finance Act which was voted through with both the Tory and Lib Dem parties in the Coalition.

Thanks.

I'm not convinced by the argument at all. I guess neither is lawyer that resigned today either.

If it were intentionally left ambiguous, surely the ambiguity would allow for and cover reasonable divergence from the spirit of things. To be sorted out later. As agreed by both sides.

Breaking the law seems to go way beyond what is reasonably covered by that ambiguity.

I don't know enough about the detail though. Really hope the government have this one right. Given their track record on u-turns and law breaking however you'll forgive me if I'm sceptical.

[Hazir]

Actually the WA is crystal clear; what has not been deemed no-risk is considered a risk (thus subject to the full rigor of the EU border regulations and subject to tariffs). The so-called ambiguity is that on the basis of joint decisions goods can be taken off the risk list. What the British government is trying to do now is pre-empt the decisions of the JC. The British government would be in breach of the treaty, not by the legislation per se, but by making use of its powers.

However, by doing what the British government and its frontmen in the media have done wrt the WA, you can be certain a mere verbal clarification today and tomorrow will not be enough to save the FTA. The British government (and its resident flunky here) thinks that 'as EU negotiations always go to the wire' this particular negotiation can 'go to the wire' as well. The negotiating of this FTA on the other hand is not an exercise in agreeing on main policies that can be worked out later by the EC, it is a process that needs to result in a fully justiable text on all matters to which it pertains that then can be ratified by the parties. In the case of the EU that means, the EP and the relevant parliaments of and in the member states. If there is a full legal text at he Council meeting in October that could result in a FTA that will be provisionally operational on the 1st of january (pending ratification). In that case we'd simply make use of the famous WTO article 24. But in the way it was intended, not the crazy misreading that Brexiteers have of it.

But, that means we need a FTA agreement that could be thousands of pages long if the UK insists on diverging from EU regulations. With potentially every page containing something that blows up the whole thing. As we talk, we don't even have the beginning of that document.

[Being]

70 million people want a trade agreement with 450 million people. What leverage do these 70 million have?

[Aimless]

70 million people want a trade agreement with 450 million people. What leverage do these 70 million have?

They're threatening to shit their pants unless the EU complies

[Aimless]

Thanks.

I'm not convinced by the argument at all. I guess neither is lawyer that resigned today either.

If it were intentionally left ambiguous, surely the ambiguity would allow for and cover reasonable divergence from the spirit of things. To be sorted out later. As agreed by both sides.

Breaking the law seems to go way beyond what is reasonably covered by that ambiguity.

I don't know enough about the detail though. Really hope the government have this one right. Given their track record on u-turns and law breaking however you'll forgive me if I'm sceptical.

You are right to be skeptical; I'm almost certain RB is misrepresenting the issue involving the 2013 financial act, wrt both legal and political aspects.

[gogobongopop]

Twitter Link