webdiplomacy.net

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm

Rather than addressing their specific argument you instead created a strawman and said they argued "that the entire world is waiting with baited breath to see whether we might consider breaching some of the minutiae of trade law", that essentially England can't do anything wrong here because "everyone is watching" (some sort of embarrassment argument?)

No I didn't.

Read it again, and really concentrate this time

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:38 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm

At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.

I'm not arguing against that because I don't disagree with it. I said much the same way back at the start of page 2. I am not going to write a counterargument to what I agree with.

But to say that that is what Jamie is arguing is ridiculous. Jamie is arguing that the Tories are doing it as part of an evil plot to benefit themselves and subdue the masses, and in doing so are gleefully going around breaking laws. You can tell that this is what Jamie thinks because this is what he writes. It is not misrepresenting him because they are the words he uses.

Octavious is correct.
That is my position.
That is what I am witnessing.

In support of this position I will say again, I am a Government procurement officer. I am aware, as I said before, of specific instances of Government ministers over-ruling their procurement officials to unlawfully award lucrative contracts to their friends. Levels of corruption and graft in Government not seen in decades.

@Jamiet, are you concerned though that it just makes the UK "look bad" or are you concerned because it may have repercussions for future international agreements?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:38 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:16 pm

At least to my understanding, they are arguing that breaking international agreements may have repercussions down the line for Britain (e.g. like a potential future trade deal with the US...or with other countries) and even threatening to break agreements as a form of negotiating brinkmanship may potentially hurt future trade negotiations...which I believe is a reasonable argument. Though again, I don't really believe Boris will actually go through with it...and I believe the brinkmanship given the importance of the agreement (the EU is the UK's biggest trading partner) may be worth the potential future cost.

I'm not arguing against that because I don't disagree with it. I said much the same way back at the start of page 2. I am not going to write a counterargument to what I agree with.

But to say that that is what Jamie is arguing is ridiculous. Jamie is arguing that the Tories are doing it as part of an evil plot to benefit themselves and subdue the masses, and in doing so are gleefully going around breaking laws. You can tell that this is what Jamie thinks because this is what he writes. It is not misrepresenting him because they are the words he uses.

There are two parts to the argument - why the Tories are doing it and what the potential international ramifications to the UK of breaking or threatening to break the agreements are.

I wasn't actually clarifying Jamie's opinion on the why Tories are doing it part. I know that it is Jamie's opinion that they are primarily doing it for nefarious reasons and I disagree with that assessment.

I though was only commenting on why the UK needs to care when they choose to break or threaten to break international agreements. So you actually agree with me on the fact that UK needs to care because it is comparatively weak? Why didn't you actually say it so I can be clear what you actually disagree on? e.g. "I agree with you on the weak part and that is a reason why the UK needs to care...but I disagree that the UK was ever strong...I am arguing that Jamiet is going further and instead saying X on the repercussions of breaking/threatening to break international agreeements". At least it would be clearer to me what exactly you are arguing.

Oh, for God's sake. Jamie is concerned by the oppression and exploitation of the working class and most vulnerable members of society by a ruthless self serving elite. International reputation and future trade deals are not immediate priorities. Breaking international law is a symptom of the disease, but not in itself the defining issue. They are bad, but only in the sense that hair loss when you have cancer is bad. The cancer itself is far worse.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:58 pm

There are two parts to the argument - why the Tories are doing it and what the potential international ramifications to the UK of breaking or threatening to break the agreements are.

The Tories are doing it to gain the best possible trade deal and so they are seen by the electorate to have tried everything possible in order to get the best possible trade deal.

The implications will be negligible because they won't actually break the law, and ultimately nobody gives a damn about someone not breaking a trade law. Nations push the boundaries of international agreements pretty much constantly.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:59 pm

Oh, for God's sake. Jamie is concerned by the oppression and exploitation of the working class and most vulnerable members of society by a ruthless self serving elite. International reputation and future trade deals are not immediate priorities. Breaking international law is a symptom of the disease, but not in itself the defining issue. They are bad, but only in the sense that hair loss when you have cancer is bad. The cancer itself is far worse.

I can't tell if you're mocking me or not.

No mockery. Unless I've completely misread you over the past few years that's a fair representation of what you believe. It's not a belief I share, obviously, but it's one I can respect in the sense that it stems from a desire to make the world a better place (at the risk of sounding a little twee).

I don't think you're a bad person. I just think the fundamental assumptions you base your politics on are way off.

I also know full well that the feeling doesn't work both ways and you see me as some sort of protonazi. Such is life :p.

In that case, Octavious, you're partly right about me, but not completely.

Yes, I am deeply concerned about the corrupt, exploitative, grasping "elite"... if you can call such in-bred, fish-lipped, webbed-fingered vermin an "elite", but whatever they are, their selfish defence of the privileges of their group, and their deep, entitled, self-serving corruption, and the enormous damage it is doing to this country, is my main concern.

However, pissing all over the concept of the rule of law, while it may be a symptom of how very bad things currently are, is more than a side issue. It is a very fundamental violation of one of the foundation stones of civilised society. The importance of the rule of law was recognised by Aristotle, by John Locke, by Montesquieu, and by the founding fathers of the United States. In the UK it may be considered one of the absolute cornerstones of of the British constitution, dating back, some might say, to Magna Carta. The principle of the rule of law holds that the law applies to all members of society equally, that the government must have a lawful basis for all that it does, and, internationally, that the government will seek to honour its treaty obligations.

I would have thought that a centre-right liberal democrat former conservative, which I think is what you claim to be, would be appalled, chilled, horrified by the casual violation of such a keystone of our civilisation.

Boris Johnson does not care for the rule of law. He couldn't give a shit about it. In this thread you have expressed support for his actions, applauded him for being a liar, and argued that his thread to violate international law is of little importance. So apparently, you don't give a shit about it either.

*his threat

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am

In this thread you have expressed support for his actions

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am

applauded him for being a liar,

Not applauded, but acknowledged the obvious truth that the ability to deceive is an important one for any leader to have.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am

and argued that his thread to violate international law is of little importance

I've argued that it is of far less importance than actually breaking it, and that breaking it isn't going to happen. If he does break it I imagine that the consequences would be significant, but how significant is not at all clear.

I am also somewhat amazed by how you now see the rule of law as all important, and yet only a few weeks ago you were celebrating BLM breaking public safety laws in the height of a pandemic. It appears to be remarkably inconsistent.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:59 pm

Oh, for God's sake. Jamie is concerned by the oppression and exploitation of the working class and most vulnerable members of society by a ruthless self serving elite. International reputation and future trade deals are not immediate priorities. Breaking international law is a symptom of the disease, but not in itself the defining issue. They are bad, but only in the sense that hair loss when you have cancer is bad. The cancer itself is far worse.

I don't understand this response. I am not sure what argument you think I am making.

Again, I was only concerned with your **specific claim** of "left wing doublethink" "that the UK has declined to international insignificance, and also that the entire world is waiting with baited breath". That is all.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:26 am

I am also somewhat amazed by how you now see the rule of law as all important, and yet only a few weeks ago you were celebrating BLM breaking public safety laws in the height of a pandemic. It appears to be remarkably inconsistent.

I believe you are mischaracterising this. I support the BLM movement. Peaceful civil disobedience is sometimes a justified form of protest. That such actions carry a risk of arrest is a component of their power. I also saw some BLM demonstrations which took place in a socially-distanced, mask-clad fashion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54260470

New 'passport' control to be introduced (for lorries) in Kent.
seems they will also use the army to enforce, presumably because they don't have enough customs agents... I don't know.the article was buried pretty deep. (this is joining this thread, because the illegal actions are about not having any border within the UK, apparently Kent is being given independence?)

No, Kent is being made part of France.

@Jamie, will France hand Normandy back to the UK? I'm not sure how this deal works...

According to some, things are much worse than the media is letting on:
https://twitter.com/castlvillageman/sta ... 04230?s=20

Irishmonk wrote: 1.England has made laws that reject the treaties it engaged in.
2. It has made law to use military on its streets.
3. It has made law that trade deals require no vote and can only be seen 5 years after enaction.

4. I has enacted laws that break devolution.
5. It has made law to allow military freedom from law.
6. It has made law to allow domestic intelligence to be unaccountable to parliament and law

7. It has announced its desire to repudiate the convention of rights.

8 would/could/will be even worse
And yet the british allow it.
At least the french had La résistance.

Britain is sleepwalking into a dark place and, as all the times in the past, only outsiders see it clearly.