The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[tonyh29]

46 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is no case of hyperbole, Liam Fox's "Easiest deal ever" is hyperbole. This is a case of telling an outright lie, which you knew to be a lie in order to mislead. Yes we really should be prosecuting people in public office for misleading the public, absolutely, 100%. In fact, this should have been prosecuted by the Electoral Commission, it's actually shameful for our democracy that it wasn't and a member of the public has had to bring a crowd-funded private prosecution for a criminal act.

If this is successful some people might learn to tell the bloody truth. How refreshing would that be in the current climate?

 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

The whole case is nothing more than a vehicle for a second rate lawyer to crowdfund fees to pay himself that he couldn’t otherwise command.

Good luck to him! 

[snowychap]

47 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

The whole case is nothing more than a vehicle for a second rate lawyer to crowdfund fees to pay himself that he couldn’t otherwise command.

Is the claim that you know Mr Lewis Power QC personally or just his body of work?

[bickster]

49 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

The whole case is nothing more than a vehicle for a second rate lawyer

Marcus J Ball isn't a lawyer, he's a specialist in mobile software

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

11 hours ago, bickster said:

Marcus J Ball isn't a lawyer, he's a specialist in mobile software

That is my bad! I was only going off him saying ‘I am a private prosecutor’, with me taking the term ‘prosecutor’ to mean that of a legal professional. I mean, if I ever happen to be in court, I hope the public prosecutor is a software specialist, should give me a fighting chance! 

I guess my take away is; if someone is making bold claims in public, I have a personal responsibility to go away and check their veracity.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

I was only going off him saying ‘I am a private prosecutor’, with me taking the term ‘prosecutor’ to mean that of a legal professional. I mean, if I ever happen to be in court, I hope the public prosecutor is a software specialist, should give me a fighting chance!

Why are you confusing and conflating private prosecutor and public prosecutor?

 

2 hours ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

I guess my take away is; if someone is making bold claims in public, I have a personal responsibility to go away and check their veracity.

Wouldn't that involve checking your assumptions before making accusations about someone being a (second rate) lawyer?

[snowychap]

Northern Ireland and the backstop: Why 'alternative arrangements' aren't an alternative

Quote

Technical fixes for the Irish border will only work if created in conjunction with affected communities and businesses. Even then, alternative arrangements will struggle to overcome the need for deep regulatory and economic integration.

The UK may be getting a new prime minister, but one of the biggest obstacles to parliamentary approval of a Brexit plan remains: the backstop, designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland. The backstop would ensure Northern Ireland remain integrated within the EU’s customs union and single market for goods, supplemented by an EU-UK customs union, until it was rendered unnecessary either by the future relationship itself, or other means. In layman’s terms, it is an insurance policy enabling the UK and EU to fulfil their shared commitment to respect the Northern Ireland peace agreement by keeping the border as open after Brexit as it is now. 

May’s Brexit plan, and indeed her premiership, have floundered because Brexiters refuse to accept the backstop, which they say will keep the UK tied to the EU indefinitely. Ever since the proposal was revealed in the Withdrawal Agreement they have argued that there are readily-available, technical means – which have been labelled ‘alternative arrangements’ – for keeping the Irish border free of physical infrastructure and associated checks after Brexit. 

A technical solution would also allow those politicians advocating a more complete rupture with the EU to argue that their preferred course of action would not inevitably lead to border controls between Ireland and Northern Ireland, or make Northern Ireland’s trading relationship with the EU distinct from Great Britain’s. Several groups have tried to come up with alternative arrangements, though none have come up with a workable solution yet.

Enter Prosperity UK, a group founded in 2017 which aims to look constructively at Britain's future outside the EU. Its Alternative Arrangements Commission (AA Commission) is co-chaired by Nicky Morgan and Greg Hands, two senior Conservative backbench MPs with ministerial experience. Drawing on the March 11th 2019 EU-UK joint instrument that partners the withdrawal agreement, the AA Commission intends to produce proposals that involve a mix of customs co-operation, facilitation and technology. Its technical advisors include independent customs experts such as Lars Karlsson and Hans Maessen, and Shanker Singham of the Institute of Economic Affairs. 

The AA Commission is still in its infancy and has not yet published conclusions. But previous work by Karlsson, Maessen and Singham gives us a flavour of the type of approach it might consider.

Broadly speaking, technical solutions to the Irish border issue tend to cover the same ground, and look something like this:

• In order to avoid the need for physical infrastructure on the Irish border, registered exporters will pre-declare the goods they intend to export to customs authorities via an online web-portal.
• Their declaration will be assessed for risk, and then either cleared for passage over the border, or they will be asked to stop off en-route at a facility where further checks can be carried out. Alternatively, checks could be done on-site at the dispatcher’s premises.
• The importer would go through the same declaration process on their side and pay any duties owed.
• So long as there is some means of registering the exact time goods physically cross from one country to another, be it trusting the traders to declare it, or tracking technology such as GPS, there is technically no need for physical infrastructure and an assigned choke point on the border itself.

While proposals similar to the one sketched out above, in theory, remove the need for physical infrastructure on the border, associated checks are very much still in play. Checks will still happen; they will just be carried out away from the border – which leads to a sensitive discussion as to how far away from the actual frontier checks need to be in order to not be understood as border checks. Five miles? Ten miles? Belfast? The Port of Larne? It is not an easy question to answer, but it needs to be addressed if such arrangements are ever to come into effect. 

There is then the question of how to police those who choose not to play by the rules. How to identify exporters who, for whatever reason, choose not to register, not to pre-declare, and not to play ball in general? One obvious solution is for customs officials to work with the police and perform randomised stop-and-search checks on vehicles around the border area (which would be needed even in the event that everyone was signed up and participating in order to keep the system honest), combined with an increase in intelligence-led policing and enforcement. This already happens to some degree because of excise and VAT-related smuggling. But smuggling opportunities would potentially be significantly larger than they currently are, thus requiring a notable increase in the scale of checks. Stops could be made less random by erecting number plate recognition cameras that could more readily identify suspicious behaviour, but this would require physical infrastructure, taking the whole discussion back to square one. Why the additional intrusion into the lives of people living and working on the border caused by stepped-up customs checks would be any less disruptive than physical infrastructure is a question that largely remains unanswered by proponents.

As such, it is difficult to see a solution for Northern Ireland which does not involve it remaining within the EU’s SPS regime.

On the regulatory side, the biggest hurdle is overcoming the need for SPS (food and plant hygiene) checks and controls. Here EU law vis-à-vis imports is particularly strict. Products of animal origin entering from third countries can only enter the EU’s territory via an approved veterinary border inspection post, where they are subject to document, identity and physical inspection. Only the EEA countries and Switzerland, who apply the EU’s SPS regime both domestically and in relation to imports from third countries (effectively extending the EU’s SPS firewall), have managed to ensure their exports of animal origin avoid these checks. (Note: Switzerland has a derogation allowing it to import heavily labelled, hormone grown beef.) As such, it is difficult to see a solution for Northern Ireland which does not involve it remaining within the EU’s SPS regime. If Great Britain does not do the same, then this will mean an increased frequency of checks (which already exist for live animals) on products of animal origin entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain. 

There is then the question of timing: how long would it realistically take to put the new processes and technology in place? Karlsson, for example, says “Can the model be implemented during a potential transition period? My answer is yes, it can.” This seems overly optimistic. 

Take the hypothetical online web-portal needed for exporters to pre-declare their shipments, for example. As part of the system, traders would benefit from a single, digital point of contact, where they can input all of the data required, as easily as possible – a so-called ‘single window’. The data would then be analysed by algorithms and the relevant government agencies, facilitating a decision as to whether further checks are needed or they are cleared to cross the border. The issue here is not that the technology does not exist (it does, and it is not particularly challenging to design a website where people input some information). But getting the 36 British government departments and agencies involved in managing a border co-ordinated and aligned behind one system, in a country where not all government departments even use the same email provider, is a significant challenge. 

Any such system would also require UK and EU customs authorities to work closely together, and (more challengingly) be prepared to recognise each other’s process and share sensitive data and information. 

Northern Irish business groups and people at present appear to be a secondary consideration to what is predominantly an intra-party Westminster debate.

Ultimately, however, the consent of the people most directly affected by arrangements for the border will be necessary for any technical solution to succeed. Any system-based approach requires the majority of traders to play ball, register, and comply with it, whatever schemes are created to manage trade across the border. This is not to say that consent could never be obtained, just that it is not there yet. Furthermore, there is little sign of the necessary groundwork being done. Northern Irish people and business groups at present appear to be a secondary consideration to what is predominantly an intra-party Westminster debate. Whereas the backstop, or a close, highly integrated economic relationship between the EU and UK, removes the need for physical infrastructure or associated checks by ensuring no new regulatory or customs border is created, technical solutions are premised on the acceptance of a new border, combined with efforts to ensure it is as unintrusive as possible. Any solution that assumes that a border community that is predominantly Irish nationalist, and against leaving the EU, will readily accept the existence of a new customs and regulatory divide faces an uphill struggle. 

None of the questions posed above have easy answers – but those putting forward new approaches for managing the Irish land border must find answers to them. It is not impossible that one day new technology and processes will replace integrated regulatory and economic alignment as the basis for frictionless borders. But that day has not yet come, and it is difficult to make the case that Northern Ireland, given its specific circumstances, should be used as a testing ground for something that does not exist anywhere else in the world. For now, the backstop remains necessary for several reasons: as an inhibitor on the more reckless instincts of some Westminster politicians; as the ultimate insurance policy against a collapse in future negotiations; and as a mechanism for safeguarding the still-fragile peace process in Northern Ireland. 

The Brexit trilemma lives. The UK can have two of the following three things, but not all of them: single market and customs union exit; a whole-UK Brexit; and no Irish border. The existence of a backstop in the withdrawal agreement suggests that May, albeit reluctantly, understood this. But the penny still hasn’t dropped for many Brexiters in her party and beyond.

Sam Lowe is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.

 

[Mic09]

17 hours ago, bickster said:

This is no case of hyperbole, Liam Fox's "Easiest deal ever" is hyperbole. This is a case of telling an outright lie, which you knew to be a lie in order to mislead. Yes we really should be prosecuting people in public office for misleading the public, absolutely, 100%. In fact, this should have been prosecuted by the Electoral Commission, it's actually shameful for our democracy that it wasn't and a member of the public has had to bring a crowd-funded private prosecution for a criminal act.

If this is successful some people might learn to tell the bloody truth. How refreshing would that be in the current climate?

What do you mean by misleading?

If Corbyn says he will fix the NHS, is he lying and should be be persecuted?

[chrisp65]

Just now, Mic09 said:

What do you mean by misleading?

If Corbyn says he will fix the NHS, is he lying and should be be persecuted?

'fix' is a nebulous term, it can mean throw some more staff at it, it can mean switch to an insurance based system, it can mean new PFI village hospitals. It could mean change the waiting time threshold and have less key performance indicators.

£350 million, well that means £350 million

What would have avoided this legal case is if Johnson had said 'hundreds of millions', or 'gazillions' or 'far far too much' or 'our childrens future inheritance'. Something less numerically specific. He deliberately set out a specific number to appear as a fact.

I suspect he can turn this to his advantage with the elite group of golf club pensioners that will choose our next PM.

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

'fix' is a nebulous term, it can mean throw some more staff at it, it can mean switch to an insurance based system, it can mean new PFI village hospitals. It could mean change the waiting time threshold and have less key performance indicators.

£350 million, well that means £350 million

What would have avoided this legal case is if Johnson had said 'hundreds of millions', or 'gazillions' or 'far far too much' or 'our childrens future inheritance'. Something less numerically specific. He deliberately set out a specific number to appear as a fact.

I suspect he can turn this to his advantage with the elite group of golf club pensioners that will choose our next PM.

I get that, but there are a few things to consider.

1. It is entirely possible his lawyers will demonstrate that £350m is being paid. Even if we get £400m in return. In which case, in the light of law, it won't be a lie. (Disclaimer - I have no idea how much we are contributing. I don't think anyone knows exactly.)

2. I think it was a lie - but if we start persecuting people in public offices for lying, we might as well shut the shop now. Every single one of them is going to prison.

3. There is a very thin line with examples that you gave above. What if we pay £350m and 1 penny? Surely, that will mean he lied too? Where do you draw the line?

I guess what I'm trying to say, if we start persecuting on these grounds then that is the end of democratic parliamentary society as we know it. 

Don't get me wrong - I think he is an idiot and mislead people, but persecuting him like that will set a very dangerous precedent.

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What do you mean by misleading?

If Corbyn says he will fix the NHS, is he lying and should be be persecuted?

No. 

If I say "Villa win the Premier League next season", I'm not lying. What I'm saying will almost certainly not be true, but it's not a lie.

See also "easiest trade deal in history" and "German car makers will make sure we get a good deal". Terrible predictions, which anyone with an ounce of common sense knew were wrong. But not lies.

If I say "Villa's home ground is St. Andrew's" then it's a lie. It's something incontrovertible, which I know to be untrue.

Like Boris's statement.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

43 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Why are you confusing and conflating private prosecutor and public prosecutor?

 

Wouldn't that involve checking your assumptions before making accusations about someone being a (second rate) lawyer?

Regardless of public or private I think the error, which I admitted to, was in my understanding of the term ‘a prosecutor’. I repeat that I made a mistake. If you are are genuinely interested in why?

Wiki

Quote

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the common law adversarial system, or the civil lawinquisitorial system.

Cambridge

Quote

 a legal official who accuses someone of committing a crime, especially in a lawcourt

OED

Quote

1.1 A barrister or other lawyer who conducts the case against a defendant in a criminal court.

I’m sure a smart guy like you can understand why I could get confused. I’ll give Mr Ball the benefit of the doubt in that I hope he wasn’t trying to deliberately confuse and conflate by describing himself as ‘a prosecutor’ and not as ‘someone bringing a prosecution’. Having read a little more about Mr Ball (that he hasn’t had removed from the Google search listings) I’m happy to replace my ‘second rate lawyer’ with ‘shameless self publicist’ 

Thanks for the notes though, I’ll take them on board. D-, must try harder.

[snowychap]

17 minutes ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

I’m sure a smart guy like you can understand why I could get confused.

I can't understand why a smart guy like you would get confused or wouldn't attempt to look in to something (i.e. check its veracity) before making an accusation or a claim such as you did, unless there were some sort of agenda there.

The dictionary links and reference to Wiki aren't really doing your cause much good (they imply desperation).

Perhaps quoting the full OED entry might have been more relevant but less of a help:

Quote

1. A person, especially a public official, who institutes legal proceedings against someone.

‘prosecutors are fully entitled to bring any number of offences against a single defendant’

1. 1.1 A barrister or other lawyer who conducts the case against a defendant in a criminal court.
   ‘the prosecutor rose to give the opening address’

Or, if you'd read past the first line in your Wiki link...

Either way, it's the circumstances and context that give definition to the word as I'm sure a smart guy would know.

Btw, haven't you previously made similar insinuations against, for example, The Good Law Project?

Edited May 30, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

EU citizens in UK at risk of Windrush-style catastrophe, say MPs

Quote

The government has been urged by MPs to urgently change its policy on EU citizens in the country if it is to avert a “Windrush-style catastrophe” in the years after Brexit.

Politicians on the influential home affairs select committee said they had serious concerns about the design of the settlement scheme for EU citizens, launched by the Home Office two months ago.

They said the design of the scheme meant many EU citizens were at risk of forfeiting their rights to remain after the deadline for registration in December 2020 in the event of no deal, or June 2021 in the event of a deal.

“The prospect of a Windrush-style catastrophe happening to over 3 million EU citizens who have made the UK their home in good faith is deeply troubling,” the committee said in a report, EU Settlement Scheme.

After an investigation and witnesses including the home secretary, Sajid Javid, it has concluded the only way to ensure EU citizens are guaranteed to retain their rights is to legislate.

“We therefore call on the government to protect in law the rights of EU citizens in the UK. The government should guarantee in law that any EU citizens living in the UK before Brexit are legal residents of the UK and are able to continue to live and work as they have done until now,” says the report.

The Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who chairs the committee, said: “The government’s current plans for the EU settlement scheme show they are not learning the lessons from the Windrush scandal.

“The problems faced by the Windrush generation showed how easily individuals can fall through gaps in the system through no fault of their own and how easily lives can be destroyed if the government gets this wrong.”

Stuart McDonald, the SNP member of the committee, said that under the scheme “too many people, including children and vulnerable individuals, risk falling through the gaps and not accessing the scheme at all … The warning signs are there, now the government must take action.”

He also said the government needed a printed document and not a digital system to enable EU citizens to deal with landlords, employers and officials at airports and ports.

“People also need hard copy documents, not just an unfamiliar digital system,” he said.

Echoing the criticisms of campaigners, the committee said EU citizens should not have to apply to remain but just have to declare they are in the country.

This would bring the approach into line with other EU countries, where people are merely required to notify a town hall of their arrival and their address.

“The government has chosen to implement a system which does not grant status to eligible people but requires them to apply for it and the home secretary told us that EU citizens are only entitled to the status which they are able to evidence.

“We disagree with this. We believe the EU citizens legally resident in the UK [before Brexit] should have their rights protected and their entitlement to remain enshrined in law,” says the report.

Witnesses told the report “there is another way forward” similar to the treatment of Commonwealth citizens who had their immigration status formalised in the 1970s.

As Colin Yeo, an immigration barrister, told them: “You just pass a law saying ‘You are lawful. We will sort out the difficulties later, as and when they arise.’”

The issue over the government approach to EU citizens came to the fore earlier this week when Michael Gove pledged to support calls by Tory backbencher Alberto Costa for a declaratory system. He has also offered free British citizenship to EU citizens.

Ministers faced a furious backlash over the treatment of the Windrush generation after it emerged long-term UK residents were denied access to cancer treatment and other services, held in detention or removed, despite living legally in the country for decades.

A Home Office spokesman said it disagreed with the findings and the settled status scheme was performing well.

“We have taken great care to learn from the experience of the Windrush generation,” he said.

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Every single one of them is going to prison.

Agreed,  "Strong and Stable" anyone 

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

What do you mean by misleading?

If Corbyn says he will fix the NHS, is he lying and should be be persecuted?

I think a better example of this would be Corbyn saying "The Tories are going to privatise the NHS"  ... there is an element of truth in it , in that some sections have been privatised ( and we do send money to the EU)  but there isn't any proof that they (Tories) want to privatise the whole thing ( we send £150 to £240m a week to the EU depending on whose figures you work with  after the rebate , not £350 m)

so in that regard , unless he can substantiate the claim , should Corbyn face prosecution ?

Edited May 30, 2019 by tonyh29

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

1. It is entirely possible his lawyers will demonstrate that £350m is being paid. Even if we get £400m in return. In which case, in the light of law, it won't be a lie. (Disclaimer - I have no idea how much we are contributing. I don't think anyone knows exactly.)

i think the case is built around semantics of the use of the word " Send"   .. the suggestion is we send them £350m but in reality we never physically send that amount of money due to the rebates 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

It is entirely possible his lawyers will demonstrate that £350m is being paid.

that isn't the full lie

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

2. I think it was a lie - but if we start persecuting people in public offices for lying, we might as well shut the shop now. Every single one of them is going to prison.

good, it's a crime.

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

There is a very thin line with examples that you gave above

No there isn't. Lying (in this instance) is something which you say to mislead even though it can be demonstrated that you knew otherwise, it's quite specific.

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

if we start persecuting on these grounds then that is the end of democratic parliamentary society as we know it. 

Well, on the one hand, it isn't at all and on the other hand... good

 

2 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Don't get me wrong - I think he is an idiot and mislead people, but persecuting him like that will set a very dangerous precedent

Not prosecuting him sets a much more dangerous precedent

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I think a better example of this would be Corbyn saying "The Tories are going to privatise the NHS"  ... there is an element of truth in it , in that some sections have been privatised ( and we do send money to the EU)  but there isn't any proof that they (Tories) want to privatise the whole thing ( we send £150 to £240m a week to the EU depending on whose figures you work with  after the rebate , not £350 m)

so in that regard , unless he can substantiate the claim , should Corbyn face prosecution ?

I don't think this is very similar at all. 

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

i think the case is built around semantics of the use of the word " Send"   .. the suggestion is we send them £350m but in reality we never physically send that amount of money due to the rebates 

The difference is between a gross and net sum. If a company - after being told they shouldn't do so by their auditors - decided to state a gross figure as a net figure in an attempt to mislead investors or shareholders, they would be in a lot of legal trouble. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't think this is very similar at all. 

 

 Johnson is being summoned to court on the basis of misleading  and " “used the platforms and opportunities offered to him by virtue of his public office” to endorse his claims

that is 100% identical to the Corbyn example I gave ,but alas I'm not an opportunist and cant be arsed to start a crowdfunding page to prove it