Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

So it is a minor tradition of the British press to do articles about "why I left London and why you should too/I regret it massively". This one from the Evening Standard is an instant classic in the genre - the mix of serious, trivial and possibly non-existent issues is simply outstanding:

I left London for the countryside and it was nothing like I dreamed

We settled, made new friends with an exciting mix of people whose lives were refreshingly different to our own - a racehorse trainer, estate owners, a pilot, landowners.

and farm vehicles are far noisier than your average run-around.

Come summer, everyone who owns a motorbike seems to descend on the Cotswolds in large convoys, ditto vintage cars.

The stop for the once-hourly bus is a mile away and ends at 7.30pm.

It's a cruel reality that we are surrounded by some of the finest pubs in the country but whenever we visit them, one of us will usually be driving.

Yes the new mix of friends statement is hilarious.

What do the expect from farm vehicle, you know the thngs that help maintain the nice countryside views?

For a rural vilage that bus service is fantastic, there are villages north of Salisbury I cycle through that have just one bus per week.

[Sheilbh]

Aaah, it will never cease to amuse me how urbanites who move to the countryside suddenly realize that... there are issues there too!  And living there is not like going for an extended weekend! 

Although the risk of ghosts is a new one for me.

Reminds me of Parisians discovering provincial countryside. 

Sueing the farmer due to farm animal noises happened for instance. No ears for roosters!

Until a law was voted to protect the sounds and smells of the countryside. 

So to tie this to the police bill - things like animal noises or smells are a "nuisance" here. They are things that impact your ability to enjoy your property. But I think the general approach is if the nuisance was there before you arrived - then that's on you, you should have realised and they were here first. But you have a lot of options if a nuisance moves into the neighbourhood.

This isn't even a countryside thing. There are loads of people who have moved into lovely Victorian/Edwardian terraces round Dalston or Hoxton (which are party areas in East London) who are suddenly annoyed at the noise of moving next to a party area I get the feeling it's well-to-do thirty somethings who want to live somewhere cool and not like the suburbs but who are then trying to change the area so it's basically like the suburbs

I don't think any of their cases have succeeded but I think they have organised politically to try and get the local council to change the licence rules in the area

[HVC]

So to tie this to the police bill - things like animal noises or smells are a "nuisance" here. They are things that impact your ability to enjoy your property. But I think the general approach is if the nuisance was there before you arrived - then that's on you, you should have realised and they were here first. But you have a lot of options if a nuisance moves into the neighbourhood.

What happens if when you move the lot next to you was a hay field, or used for crops, can the farmer then now change it into pasture land? would that be considered a new nuissance?

[Tamas]

Aaah, it will never cease to amuse me how urbanites who move to the countryside suddenly realize that... there are issues there too!  And living there is not like going for an extended weekend! 

Although the risk of ghosts is a new one for me.

Reminds me of Parisians discovering provincial countryside. 

Sueing the farmer due to farm animal noises happened for instance. No ears for roosters!

Until a law was voted to protect the sounds and smells of the countryside. 

So to tie this to the police bill - things like animal noises or smells are a "nuisance" here. They are things that impact your ability to enjoy your property. But I think the general approach is if the nuisance was there before you arrived - then that's on you, you should have realised and they were here first. But you have a lot of options if a nuisance moves into the neighbourhood.

This isn't even a countryside thing. There are loads of people who have moved into lovely Victorian/Edwardian terraces round Dalston or Hoxton (which are party areas in East London) who are suddenly annoyed at the noise of moving next to a party area I get the feeling it's well-to-do thirty somethings who want to live somewhere cool and not like the suburbs but who are then trying to change the area so it's basically like the suburbs

I don't think any of their cases have succeeded but I think they have organised politically to try and get the local council to change the licence rules in the area

So what you are saying is that if I buy a dog, I am risking 10 years in jail.

[HVC]

don't be a dog owner with a yappy dog. be it in England, Hungary, or in Canada. don't be that guy. no one likes that guy.

[Duque de Bragança]

This isn't even a countryside thing. There are loads of people who have moved into lovely Victorian/Edwardian terraces round Dalston or Hoxton (which are party areas in East London) who are suddenly annoyed at the noise of moving next to a party area I get the feeling it's well-to-do thirty somethings who want to live somewhere cool and not like the suburbs but who are then trying to change the area so it's basically like the suburbs

I don't think any of their cases have succeeded but I think they have organised politically to try and get the local council to change the licence rules in the area

Bobos/Hipsters want a trendy neighborhood without any inconveniences. By 30-35, they tire more easily indeed. 

[Sheilbh]

What happens if when you move the lot next to you was a hay field, or used for crops, can the farmer then now change it into pasture land? would that be considered a new nuissance?

Don't know - there'll be cases on that. My gut is that would be fine but if the farmer then changes the field into a slurry pit that's a change of use and a new nuisance.

Separately - interesting debate on Twitter about the UK flu strategy. One of the potential reasons for why the UK has handled covid so badly has been suggested that we were following our flu pandemic strategy and covid behaves differently so mistake were made because we'd planned for the wrong thing.

People are now challenging the flu strategy itself because it assumes - as it's baseline - that there'd be 315,000 deaths. It also assumes that there'd be a new flu vaccine in about 6 months, but there's basically no measures around border control, no lockdown nothing. Again it's got those two starting assumptions that I think UK experts had going into this of it being impossible to impose lockdowns or social distancing/social behaviour changing measures and once it gets here and is transmitting in the community there's nothing we can do. I think both of those assumptions need challenging now given the experience of covid - and I think the idea that we could tolerate over 300k deaths in six months while a vaccine is being developed just seems wrong.

It's sort of linked to something I've been wondering about in the last few weeks about how we have had a record low number of flu deaths this year but routinely accept that there'll just be I think 10,000 plus preventable deaths every December and January. I wonder if in the long term we'll see changes in behaviour or government campaigns for people to wear masks, meet outside, wash hands, socially distance if possible - all of that sort of stuff - every winter because those annual deaths feel like something we can significantly reduce

[HVC]

i'm sure that the change in culture in regards to masks and hygiene helped diminish "regular" flu deaths, but i wonder how much of the decrease in death can be attributed to covid getting to them first? A lot of those flu death attack the old and already compromised, just like covid. covid just does it better. 

[Barrister]

What happens if when you move the lot next to you was a hay field, or used for crops, can the farmer then now change it into pasture land? would that be considered a new nuissance?

Don't know - there'll be cases on that. My gut is that would be fine but if the farmer then changes the field into a slurry pit that's a change of use and a new nuisance.

There was a case from first year law school that involved people building houses next to a cricket pitch then suing about all the cricket balls that came onto their property.  Lord Denning went on to wax poetic about the village cricket fields.

In the end the fact that the cricket pitch was there first didn't entirely help them - they were still responsible for damages done by any errant ball.

[googles - Miller v Jackson]

[Sheilbh]

There was a case from first year law school that involved people building houses next to a cricket pitch then suing about all the cricket balls that came onto their property.  Lord Denning went on to wax poetic about the village cricket fields.

In the end the fact that the cricket pitch was there first didn't entirely help them - they were still responsible for damages done by any errant ball.

[googles - Miller v Jackson]

I think that's a case on remoteness - as you say Lord Denning waxing poetical is definitely a law school memory. Glad to know he's an experience for Canadian students too

The only nuisance case I remember was a claim against building skyscrapers that interfered with a resident's TV signal - and from memory the ruling was that it didn't count as nuisance because it was like interference with a view, so I think the view/TV signal isn't their property so you can't really be said to be interfering with their enjoyment of it.

[The Larch]

Going back to Brexit news...

Dominic Raab 'totally misunderstands' Northern Ireland Brexit terms, warns EU
European vice-president Maroš Šefčovič says claim about Brussels trying to erect barrier down Irish Sea undermines UK's reputation

Britain's foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, has been accused by Brussels of displaying a "total misunderstanding" of the Brexit deal after claiming the EU was trying to erect a barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Maroš Šefčovič, the European commission's vice-president, said Raab's comments raised major questions, and warned that Britain was tarnishing its global reputation by ignoring the terms of its agreements with Brussels.

The EU on Monday launched legal proceedings against the UK over alleged breaches of the Northern Ireland protocol in the Brexit withdrawal agreement, which is designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Brussels accused the UK of seeking to break international law for a second time by overriding the terms of the treaty to unilaterally extend a grace period on paperwork for goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain.

Šefčovič, who acts as Britain's Lord Frost's EU counterpart on committees relating to Brexit, said the damage done to the UK's image by its conduct had been evident during his discussions last week with a bipartisan group of US congress members known as the Friends of Ireland.

He pinpointed this week's claims made by Raab, a former Brexit secretary, in which he had accused the EU of damaging the Good Friday agreement by seeking to "erect a barrier down the Irish Sea", as a further reason for dwindling faith internationally in the British government.

"This is what I feel when I talk to my international partners; that was what I felt when I talked to the Friends of Ireland on the [Capitol] Hill in the US," he said. "The statements, like I saw yesterday from the foreign secretary, Raab, who, if I remember correctly was also for a couple of months in charge of the Brexit negotiations, that it's the EU that wants to build the border between GB and Northern Ireland, and that it's unacceptable ... That raises a lot of questions because this is, if I put it very diplomatically, a total misunderstanding of the deal we have signed."

The withdrawal agreement in effect left Northern Ireland in the EU's single market and erected a customs border in the Irish Sea to avoid any checks on goods coming and going from the Irish Republic. It is a deal similar to that dismissed by Theresa May when she was prime minister on the basis that it created borders within the UK.

Šefčovič said Boris Johnson's government had known what it was signing up to and that he had been "surprised" by the repeated attempts to avoid the consequences of border checks on goods, including for food safety and animal and plant health, known as sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

"If you look through the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, that's very clear what we agreed to: that we would have the border control posts built and that is supposed to be built by the end of the last year," he said.

"These checks and controls will be performed by the UK authorities, meaning the EU law will be fully applicable. That is the the gist of the deal.

"Our mutual responsibility is to make it as smooth as possible. Therefore, we offered in the previous times a customs union, a common SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] area. All these were rejected. So now we are faced with the consequences."

This week the commission initiated a process that could result in the UK being taken to the European Court of Justice and facing potentially facing trade sanctions.

Šefčovič warned Frost that the UK was "on a path of a deliberate breach of its international law obligations and the duty of good faith", demanding that the government reverse its unilateral decision to extend a grace period on key checks due to end on 1 April until "at least October".

The commission has called on the UK to return to the negotiating table to find a way forward by the end of the month. Šefčovič, a former diplomat for the Slovakian government, said he had first met Frost, who has been accused of taking a confrontational approach with Brussels, "many years ago" and their last conversation had been "very polite, very courteous".

"I think we both realise that we have the job to do and from my side what I want is to have as good a relationship with the UK as possible," he said. "But, of course, I have to insist vehemently on respecting the deals we have signed."

Šefčovič added: "It's very difficult to operate in the environment where the government which signed and ratified this international law is actively advising the business community not to follow the rules and not respect the law. And, of course, we hope that this will be corrected."

The UK government has said its extension of the grace periods is a pragmatic and lawful effort to allow traders further time to adapt to the changes brought by Brexit. A spokesman said "low-key operational measures like these are well precedented and common in the early days of major international treaties".

A UK source said: "The EU needs to take a more look pragmatic approach and keep in mind that the protocol depends on cross-community consent and confidence if it is to work. It needs to protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions.

"We agree on the importance of getting around the table and, as we said on Monday, we are committed to discussing the issues within the joint committee in a constructive fashion.

"We have remained in touch with the EU throughout the process and have provided detail on our actions which were taken to minimise disruption in the ground in Northern Ireland."

[Legbiter]

So it is a minor tradition of the British press to do articles about "why I left London and why you should too/I regret it massively". This one from the Evening Standard is an instant classic in the genre - the mix of serious, trivial and possibly non-existent issues is simply outstanding:

Her stuggles with the haunted house reminds me of the local power company here last year when they were constructing a sub station or somesuch on a farmers' property which involved them tearing down an old barn. The farmer said there was an annoying ghost there and had been for years and requested that it be exorcised away first, otherwise it might start roaming around. The company promptly complied and the local parish priest duly showed up in full regalia to banish the troublesome ghost. Also there's an álagablettur on the land that was not to be disturbed in any way. There's a couple of elf mounds on my family property which require certain etiquette as well. I don't strictly believe, of course, but I scrupulously observe all the correct customs nontheless. It's almost like Shinto in that way.

[Sheilbh]

I think his take is on a slight misreporting because Raab said the EU were wanting to erect a border that would undermine the NIP and the GFA. The NIP exists because of the GFA - which both sides want to support. If the implementation of NIP in practice undermines the GFA either because it basically doesn't have cross-community support then that is likely to lead to Stormont rejecting the NIP in 2024 (the election is next year and currently if, as they almost always do, the unionists win a majority then the NIP will likely be rejected by Stormont in 2024) or to a resumption of violence, then the application has undermined the NIP and the GFA. It will have achieved the exact opposite of what it's intent is.

I think there is a way of implementing the NIP in a way that means it and the GFA can survive, but it's not where we're headed now.

Also on a purely political level it is really unhelpful to position the NIP as a border or a barrier - because the single core part of unionist identity is that they are core part of the UK like any other part of the UK. The single biggest thing the people we're trying to convince to support the NIP want to avoid is a border with the rest of the UK. Every time it's described as a border or barrier it just reinforces the unionist allegation that Downing Street is surreptitiously "greening" Northern Ireland through the NIP. I know it's angels dancing on the head of a pin (but this is Northern Ireland - the two communities can't even agree on the name of the peace treaty) so I think it should just be positioned in a less inflamatory way, like the agricultural checks that have always been conducted on the island of Ireland, it's a developed version of that sort of check. Because talking about the implementation of the NIP = a border/barrier is just a red flag to a bull.

[Admiral Yi]

I lost interest and zoned out with the bolded bit. Sympathy levels : 0.
I mean. What the flip do you expect?
Fingers crossed she now undergoes an awakening on how disadvantaged the countryside is.

On the previous stuff - Read an article from the guardian today which suggests Henry's appearance may have been a  cynical ploy to appear relatable. 😔

I got turned off by the glossy gigantic portrait.  Is this supposed to be an article about how fascinating the author is or about moving to the country?

I also noticed that the only people she mentions apart from her family are those she is forced to come in contact with.  A good snapshot for you Squeeze of the self-centered, narcissistic Londoner.

[Barrister]

don't be a dog owner with a yappy dog. be it in England, Hungary, or in Canada. don't be that guy. no one likes that guy.

But some dogs (like beagles) or just loud dogs...