BC UK

There's a tragic irony to Johnson's love of Churchill.

When Churchill became prime minister, he said: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat". He was honest about the severity of the situation and what it entailed. He didn't pretend everything would magically be alright.
Johnson's approach is the exact opposite. He runs from bad news like a dog from fireworks. He invents nonsense timetables by which everything will be fine.
He assumes the public need constant good news and sacrifices his own trustworthiness in order to provide it - it'll be over in six weeks, by Easter, by summer, by Christmas, by February, whatever.
It's equivalent to Churchill using his first speech as PM to insist the war will be over by Christmas.
Johnson clearly wants to be him and can muster some of the mannerisms of his language. But in terms of the core proposition of the man - the realism, sense of sacrifice and national mission, he is as distinct from him as it is possible to imagine.

More from Uk

Just finished reading an article by Iain MacWhirter that is so full of demonstrable falsehoods & logical fallacies that it requires a firm response: So seeing as I’ve done one nuclear thread this week already, I might as well do another... 🧵☢️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇳

Iain is able to correctly identify that the submission that @SNP_SITW group made to the UK #IntegratedReview - and therefore wasn’t policy about an independent Scotland - but that’s where his grip on reality ends.

We called for unilateral disarmament, as I pointed out on Monday:
https://t.co/DwHt9knqHh


Iain chooses to elide the fact that our submission was clearly not about policy in an independent Scotland, and therefore seeks to portray our request to the UK Government to be serious about its own commitments to multilateral arms control treaties — like the NPT — as SNP policy

Despite revealing that he knows a thing or two about internal SNP procedures, he then goes on to conflate two unconnected things — our submission, and a putative conference motion that the democratically-elected conferences committee (not the Leadership) decided not to accept
A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)

1/

The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.

The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.

https://t.co/n4oWE8x5Vg /2


International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.

But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.

See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD https://t.co/RXmib1qGYD

/3


The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

https://t.co/54L4lHGMEr

/4


That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?

But...

You May Also Like