|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On August 09 2019 01:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences? Pretty sure they'd get slapped with sanctions by the WTO if they didn't control the Irish border. But hard to say, the WTO doesn't actually have a lot of power. A sneekier option is to open an immigrant corridor from Lesbos/Lampedusa to Belfast 
How so? What international norms governed by the WTO are being violated by being purpusefully incompetent in enforcing your own border rules?
Maybe because the UK is giving a benefit to the EU, other countries can invoke the most favored nation principle and ask for the same treatment, but that seems a bit of a stretch and would take a while to kick in.
|
On August 08 2019 23:56 schaf wrote:
But there is no border in Ireland. Somebody would have to install it there first.
The EU/Ireland will be forced to implement checks on the Island of Ireland. It doesn't necessarily has to be right at the border and some of it will be done electronicly but there will be checks.
|
On August 09 2019 02:08 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 01:34 Acrofales wrote:On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences? Pretty sure they'd get slapped with sanctions by the WTO if they didn't control the Irish border. But hard to say, the WTO doesn't actually have a lot of power. A sneekier option is to open an immigrant corridor from Lesbos/Lampedusa to Belfast How so? What international norms governed by the WTO are being violated by being purpusefully incompetent in enforcing your own border rules? Maybe because the UK is giving a benefit to the EU, other countries can invoke the most favored nation principle and ask for the same treatment, but that seems a bit of a stretch and would take a while to kick in.
Why is it "a bit of a stretch"? You'd be hard pressed to find a more obvious breach of the most favored nation principle.
|
On August 09 2019 02:24 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 02:08 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 09 2019 01:34 Acrofales wrote:On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences? Pretty sure they'd get slapped with sanctions by the WTO if they didn't control the Irish border. But hard to say, the WTO doesn't actually have a lot of power. A sneekier option is to open an immigrant corridor from Lesbos/Lampedusa to Belfast How so? What international norms governed by the WTO are being violated by being purpusefully incompetent in enforcing your own border rules? Maybe because the UK is giving a benefit to the EU, other countries can invoke the most favored nation principle and ask for the same treatment, but that seems a bit of a stretch and would take a while to kick in. Why is it "a bit of a stretch"? You'd be hard pressed to find a more obvious breach of the most favored nation principle.
If the UK were really commited to this approach they might put token border controls in place and claim they were not giving the EU any privileges. They might point to EU goods coming through other channels as proof these privileges don't exist, and WTO litigation would take years to go through.
Just to be clear, this situation would be throughly bizarre, and I think extremely unlikely to happen, my point is just to question the premisse of WTO sanctions in the case of leaving the Irish border virtually open.
|
Yeah. I am pretty sure that the people who wanted Brexit to take back control of their destiny or whatever are not going to be happy with a completely uncontrolled border through which hordes of illegal romanians and terrorists and drugs could come into the UK.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
|
I think the UK GDP will rise next (this) quarter due to stockpiling then the UK will fall into recession during the following two quarters.
I just saw NZ slash rates .5 to a mere 1.0 a few days ago, clearly the situation is bad.It looks like we are on the verge of another global financial crisis, there is too much debt in the system for it to continue functioning healthily.
|
So is Boris Johnsson actually doing something at all right now? Because he said he was going to get a lot of shit done before Oktober 31 and I haven't heard a thing.
Or is he just hiding in 10 Downing street trying to get in as many wanks as possible as PM before he gets thrown out?
|
On August 10 2019 21:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
So is Boris Johnsson actually doing something at all right now? Because he said he was going to get a lot of shit done before Oktober 31 and I haven't heard a thing.
Or is he just hiding in 10 Downing street trying to get in as many wanks as possible as PM before he gets thrown out?
It's quite fascinating really. BoJo is not even trying to negotiate with the EU, which was a big part of his message in the campaign. His positive go-get attitude was to succeed where May had failed. He tossed that immediatly aside and started talking about ways to force a no deal. I tend to believe most politicians are rational people in the end so I my best (and only) take on his actions is that he's banking on the parliament to stop him. Fintan O'Toole has been talking about it recently: https://www.irishecho.com.au/news/2019/8/9/the-fintan-otoole-interview-boris-brexit-bluff-and-bluster
Perhaps I'm just naive.
|
Johnson will indeed force the HoC to block a no-deal. And then he will use that to run for PM (right now he is unelected). This will help him secure 5 years. What he does with Brexit then he will decide then.
This is very risky as some people Johnson has now given posts want a no-deal because it benefits them, or their donors, or their backers (Putin).
|
On August 09 2019 02:43 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 02:24 Longshank wrote:On August 09 2019 02:08 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 09 2019 01:34 Acrofales wrote:On August 08 2019 23:34 schaf wrote:
I'm confused. Everything points to a hard brexit since neither UK nor EU is willing to compromise. Logically, as soon as the UK leaves and implements laws and regulations that differ from the EU ones, there need to be checks on goods and people's movement at some border.
What if Johnson simply doesn't do that? UK rules would likely be more lax than the EU versions so he wouldn't be afraid of EU imports. The EU on the other hand would need to protect the single market from UK goods and thus introduce 'some kind of' border checks. Johnson would effectively leave it to the EU to break the Good Friday Agreement. Of course he would be breaking WTO rules (I assume) but he could blame the failure of the GFA on the EU.
Is that a viable option for him? What would be the consequences? Pretty sure they'd get slapped with sanctions by the WTO if they didn't control the Irish border. But hard to say, the WTO doesn't actually have a lot of power. A sneekier option is to open an immigrant corridor from Lesbos/Lampedusa to Belfast How so? What international norms governed by the WTO are being violated by being purpusefully incompetent in enforcing your own border rules? Maybe because the UK is giving a benefit to the EU, other countries can invoke the most favored nation principle and ask for the same treatment, but that seems a bit of a stretch and would take a while to kick in. Why is it "a bit of a stretch"? You'd be hard pressed to find a more obvious breach of the most favored nation principle. If the UK were really commited to this approach they might put token border controls in place and claim they were not giving the EU any privileges. They might point to EU goods coming through other channels as proof these privileges don't exist, and WTO litigation would take years to go through. Just to be clear, this situation would be throughly bizarre, and I think extremely unlikely to happen, my point is just to question the premisse of WTO sanctions in the case of leaving the Irish border virtually open.
sry haven't been in here for a while and just caught up on the last 2 pages or so, so maybe a bit out of nowhere but wanted to comment on this. Not specifically this post but this question in general.
Imo the idea that WTO ruling would take years to go through is correct. However, I am pretty sure that in such a scenario reaction from individual (big) countries would be instant or almost instant.
If the UK let's EU goods in without border checks you can't tell me that Trump sees that, and then after being informed about the situation and being told it allows the US to get something out of the UK, just ignores it. There would be some form of tariffs or whatever else while the litigation process is running.
Sure, he likes Brexit because it splits up the EU and says he'll help Britain but I don't think it goes as far as ignoring a situation in which the US could benefit over the UK and get something out of them just to help the UK.
Not quite sure I'd say the same about Russia and China with tariffs/sanctions already being in place on them and they're probably more careful about how they will react but I wouldn't rule it out completly either. But def more unlikely.
India maybe a bit more likely to also slap the UK on the wrist somehow.
|
Apparently no-one in our government realized that printing anti-knifecrime messages on fried chicken boxes might be interpreted as racist.
They really literally don't even have a clue what everyone is talking about.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/14/anti-knife-branding-in-chicken-shops-called-stupid-by-mps
The Home Office has been criticised by opposition MPs over a scheme to send hundreds of thousands of chicken boxes branded with #knifefree to chicken shops in an effort to dissuade young people from carrying the weapons.
Policing minister Kit Malthouse said on Wednesday that the chicken boxes would help emphasise the dangers of carrying a knife and challenge the idea that it makes you safer, but Labour MP David Lammy said the government was stereotyping black people.
“The Home Office is using taxpayers’ money to sponsor an age-old trope,” he told the Guardian. “Boris Johnson has already called black people ‘piccaninnies with watermelon smiles’. Now his government is pushing the stereotype that black people love fried chicken. This ridiculous stunt is either explicitly racist or, at best, unfathomably stupid.
“I know it might cost a bit more time, effort and money, but I would love it if you would announce a programme of investment in our local communities instead of spending five minutes on a harmful gimmick.”
|
United States42853 Posts
The charges of racism are dumb. Fried chicken is a southern food in the US and the southern states were slave states. In the UK fried chicken has no colour and fast food is the food of a colourless poverty. This is making something out of nothing. Gangs in the UK aren’t all composed of black peoples (we have far more browns, plus chavs) and even if they were fried chicken isn’t how out of touch Tories would appeal to them. They’re stretching with knife = gang = black = chicken. It’s just knife = poor = eats food out of a box.
|
Muslims don't eat pork and beef is expensive. What is what in Southern US doesn't matter because this is the UK.
|
I have to admit, I was unaware that there was a stereotype associated with fried chicken for black people. Seems a bit strange anyways. Why would "chicken shops" accept government branding? Most chicken shops in UK are run under franchising.
|
On August 15 2019 06:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I have to admit, I was unaware that there was a stereotype associated with fried chicken for black people. Seems a bit strange anyways. Why would "chicken shops" accept government branding? Most chicken shops in UK are run under franchising. Because the government pays them in return? Pretty simple
And yeah I don't think the 'black people eat chicken' stuff is a thing in Europe.
Outrage for the sake of outrage by the opposition.
Fast food eating teenages sounds like a useful demographic to target to reduce the number of knives on the street.
|
I mean it'd obviously be racist in the US but in the UK it just strikes me as an odd choice.
Like wouldn't having done it with burger wrappers been cheaper and at establishments that don't literally have knives as a somewhat commonly used utensil (like for buttering biscuits or whatever you guys call em)?
That said I wouldn't be surprised if there was a racial component (however silly it may be).
|
Northern Ireland25517 Posts
On August 15 2019 06:39 KwarK wrote:
It’s dumb. Fried chicken is a southern food in the US and the southern states were slave states. In the UK fried chicken has no colour and fast food is the food of a colourless poverty. This is making something out of nothing.
Does it not? Plenty of tropes that are theoretically purely US based in actuality get exported all over the place.
We don’t really have any sizeable black community over here and I’m aware of such tropes, as to whether they’re a factor over in the mainland or not I really don’t know.
Regardless it’s fucking stupid, cut all sorts of funding over years so various local social projects can’t afford to run and years later write some imploration to not do bad things on chicken boxes.
Wow crime increases when you cut anti-poverty programs, cut funding to community programs and cut police numbers, who could have possibly foreseen such a thing?
|
One of the perks of the internet/globalisation. Stuff that, while ridiculous, is clearly not racist suddenly gets called racist because half the world away it actually would be.
I doubt the "old" people that came up with this had any idea that this could be seen as racist.
|
On August 15 2019 15:57 Velr wrote:
One of the perks of the internet/globalisation. Stuff that, while ridiculous, is clearly not racist suddenly gets called racist because half the world away it actually would be.
I doubt the "old" people that came up with this had any idea that this could be seen as racist.
If you read my original post on the subject, this is exactly my point.
The people in our government are ridiculously out of touch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
