Method Or Madness: Boris’s Threat To Walk From Brexit Trade Talks

From Boris Johnson this morning, a warning shot across Brussels' Brexit bow. His government’s negotiating mandate for the forthcoming trade talks—published today —held few surprises, save one startling threat: should little progress have been made by summer, the U.K. is ready to walk away. That’s not an outcome anyone wants. The longer the talks, the higher the chance of a business-boosting deal being brokered. So why even threaten it? Outlining a timeframe—however tight—is a sensible move, some might argue. It allows both sides to focus on the task at hand, while leaving time to prepare for no agreement at all. But let’s be honest, this is about pressure, not prudence. Forcing forward the deadline will inject fresh urgency into proceedings, giving Britain leverage over the E.U. 27 in the process, Johnson hopes. LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - FEBRUARY 26: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street ... [+] Getty Images Few could deny that the negotiations—which start next week—must hit the ground running. But reducing the already slim window for success is a risky strategy, not least with such colossal hurdles ahead. Regulatory alignment is the line both sides are refusing to cross. Johnson has his sights set on a Canada-style agreement—one modelled on the E.U.’s arrangement with Ottawa. In principle, the Europeans are game. But it’s the detail that counts. Given the U.K.’s geographical proximity to Europe, and the nature and scale of business conducted between the two, Britain must assent to regulatory conditions that Canada does not, European negotiators have made clear. From labor laws to environmental standards, competition rules and consumer rights, Britain would have to meet with a raft of E.U. regulation. All would be policed by the European Court of Justice, which no longer features a British judge. For Johnson, this is too much. His appraisal of the 2016 referendum result is unflinching: when 17.4 million people voted to leave the E.U., they voted to leave its institutions and its law—anything short is unacceptable. LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 08: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson meets EU Commission President ... [+] Getty Images Why then did he agree that a future trade deal should be “underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition”? The answer, most likely, is timing. That commitment—a key element of the Political Declaration, agreed by both sides in October—predates the Tories’ towering election victory. Emboldened by his 80 seat majority, Johnson's uncompromising approach reflects a prime minister with parliamentary heft. The Europeans aren’t for backing down, however. Without alignment, Brussels fears a “Singapore-on-Thames” scenario—an aggressively deregulated British economy undercutting business on the continent. That is not his intent, Johnson has stressed. But trust is in short supply at the moment—and so an almighty impasse looms. Factoring in disagreements over fishing (negotiators are at loggerheads over access to U.K. waters) and financial services (London worries that a system of ‘equivalence’ may cede British banks’ sovereignty to Brussels), the likelihood of no agreement being reached seems high. Lorries line up at control barriers for departure inside the Eastern Dock of the Port of Dover is ... [+] In Pictures via Getty Images In that event, Britain would start trading with Europe on World Trade Organisation terms: regulatory barriers, tariffs, and quotas. Who would come off best in that scenario is unclear—though it would be to neither side’s economic advantage, most agree. But as we’ve seen throughout the Brexit process, brinkmanship and bluff can lead to breakthrough. Calling time early on talks might not be wise—but if the threat of walking away focuses minds, it is a worthy strategy. (Unless, of course, a miscalculation leaves everyone poorer.) Either way, the shadow-boxing stops now. Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out some of my other work here. Alasdair Lane

Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi

Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan The myth of strategic stability/instability in South Asia (part-1) on February 27, 2020 Recently a seasoned Pakistani strategist Lieutenant General (retd) Khalid Kidwai, Advisor, National Command Authority( NCA); and former Director-General, Strategic Plans Division, Pakistan, gave the Keynote Address at the Workshop on ‘South Asian Strategic Stability: Deterrence, Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control’, hosted by the London- based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS). Lt General Khalid Kidwai […] UN role is alive on Kashmir: the truth international law proclaims on February 20, 2020 Addressing a joint news conference during his current visit to Pakistan, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has urged for full respect to human and fundamental rights in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IoK) and implementation of the relevant UN resolutions on the issue. As for the BJP or the Modi’s regime, it could have made an adventure […] UK parts with EU: a fading dream of European unity? on February 13, 2020 Officially, the UK remains separated from the EU on January 31, albeit a complete withdrawal process will take further negotiations for a few more months. Though the bonds of 47 years of relationship between the EU and the UK have after all lost their historical moorings, yet for both sides, the choice to part with […] Trump-Netanyahu’s annexationist plan: false dawn in Mideast on February 6, 2020 US President Donald Trump’s wishful plan or the so-called deal of the century– to settle the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict — has almost no chance of working. That’s simply because the Palestinians have nothing to gain from it. None of the pressing issues including the return of towns and villages occupied by Israel, the right of […] European diplomatic offensive on India’s ultra vires acts on January 30, 2020 On January 29, the European Parliament is scheduled to debate and vote on a scathing resolution against the Modi government in India. The resolution– which has been drafted and supported by lawmakers from six major European political groups of the 27-member body–has called on the European Union and its member states to denounce India’s ultra […] Trump’s impeachment challenge on January 22, 2020 Apparently, President Trump has appeared distracted because of the impeachment trial that began on Tuesday. “Why are they doing this to me,” the source quoted Trump as saying repeatedly, telling people around him this weekend at Mar-a-Lago that he “can’t understand why he is impeached.” Congressional Democrats have fundamentally charged Donald Trump’s conduct in the […] US-Iran-Israel conflict: impact on the region & int’l law on January 15, 2020 An unjustly targeted killing of the Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani by the US drone attack inside Iraq has triggered a dramatic escalation in the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. As for Iran, theU.S. killing of QassemSoleimani, Iran’s most powerful figure after its supreme leader, is rightly seen as an act of war crimethat […] Installation of lethal weapons: India’s harrowing game on January 9, 2020 AJK President Sardar Masood Khan said that the Indians have installed lethal weapons at the Line of Control, which is clearly reflective of the Modi government’s aggressive designs against Pakistan. The current government in India has demonstrated its willingness to take considerable risks, including in the February 2019 crisis. Moreover, New Delhi’s August 2019 decision […] FATF: Challenges for global South & Pakistan on January 6, 2020 The international anti-money laundering watchdog-FATF is committed to deter the flow of black money in the international market and to curb the cult of terrorism– caused by financial assistance both regionally and globally. Since its genesis in 1989, the FATF body is busy in exploiting the task of marinating transparent norms, stipulations and by-laws that […] FATF CHALLENGES on January 4, 2020 The international anti-money laundering watchdog-FATF is committed to deter the flow of black money in the international market and to curb the cult of terrorism– caused by financial assistance both regionally and globally. Since its genesis in 1989, the FATF body is busy in exploiting the task of marinating transparent norms, stipulations and by-laws that […]

How deadly is new coronavirus? Scientists still cannot tell

As infections of the virus that causes COVID-19 surge in other countries, even a low fatality rate can add up to lots of victims, and understanding why one place fares better than another becomes critical to unravel. "You could have bad outcomes with this initially until you really get the hang of how to manage" it, Dr. Bruce Aylward, the World Health Organization envoy who led a team of scientists just back from China, warned Tuesday. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE DEATH RATE? In the central China city of Wuhan, where the new coronavirus first exploded, 2 per cent to 4 per cent of patients have died, according to WHO. But in the rest of hard-hit China, the death rate was strikingly lower, 0.7 per cent. There's nothing different about the virus from one place to another. Instead, the never-before-seen strain of coronavirus struck Wuhan fast - before anyone knew what the illness was - and overwhelmed health facilities. As is usual at the beginning of an outbreak, the first patients were severely ill before they sought care, Aylward said. By the time people were getting sick in other parts of China, authorities were better able to spot milder cases - meaning there were more known infections for each death counted. And while there are no specific treatments for COVID-19, earlier supportive care may help, too. China went from about 15 days between onset of symptoms and hospitalisation early in the outbreak, to about three days more recently. advertisement Still, Aylward expressed frustration at people saying: "'Oh, the mortality rate's not so bad because there's way more mild cases.' Sorry, the same number of people that were dying, still die." WHAT ABOUT DEATHS OUTSIDE OF CHINA? Until the past week, most people diagnosed outside of China had become infected while traveling there. People who travel generally are healthier and thus may be better able to recover, noted Johns Hopkins University outbreak specialist Lauren Sauer. And countries began screening returning travelers, spotting infections far earlier in places where the medical system wasn't already strained. That's now changing, with clusters of cases in Japan, Italy and Iran, and the death toll outside of China growing. Aylward cautioned that authorities should be careful of "artificially high" death rates early on: Some of those countries likely are seeing the sickest patients at first and missing milder cases, just like Wuhan did. HOW DOES COVID-19 COMPARE TO OTHER DISEASES? A cousin of this new virus caused the far deadlier severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003, and about 10 per cent of SARS patients died. Flu is a different virus family, and some strains are deadlier than others. On average, the death rate from seasonal flu is about 0.1 per cent, said Dr. Anthony Fauci of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. That's far lower than what has been calculated so far for COVID-19. But millions of people get the flu every year around the world, leading to an annual death toll in the hundreds of thousands. WHO'S MOST AT RISK FROM COVID-19? Older people, especially those with chronic illnesses such as heart or lung diseases, are more at risk. Among younger people, deaths are rarer, Aylward said. But some young deaths have made headlines, such as the 34-year-old doctor in China who was reprimanded by communist authorities for sounding an early alarm about the virus only to later succumb to it. In China, 80 per cent of patients are mildly ill when the virus is detected, compared with 13 per cent who already are severely ill. While the sickest to start with are at highest risk of death, Aylward said, a fraction of the mildly ill do go on to die - for unknown reasons. On average, however, WHO says people with mild cases recover in about two weeks, while those who are sicker can take anywhere from three to six weeks. ALSO READ | Coronavirus LIVE updates: Death toll in Mainland China reaches 2,715, over 80,000 infected globally ALSO WATCH | Is Coronavirus a secret Chinese bio-warfare weapon? https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ugcPost-6591340048472432640-YIzR

Australia: Who can see my criminal record? by Jarryd Bartle Sydney Criminal Lawyers

. One of the most common concerns defendants have in criminal cases is the impact of a conviction on their future, including their current or future employment and travel plans. The following is a basic outline of the rules when it comes to criminal records, the impact of court and media reporting and whether we all deserve a right to be forgotten. Criminal Records When most people think of a 'criminal record', they are referring to the information likely to be disclosed in a National Police Check (NPC) or a Working with Children Check (WCC) NPCs may be required for certain forms of employment, such as government work, as well as when applying for certain visas. WCCs are required for most forms of work which involve children. Generally, any "disclosable court outcome" – including findings of guilt and outstanding criminal charges – can appear on an NPC or WCC. States and Territories differ in the extent to which they disclose information. As we have previously discussed, the following outcomes are normally disclosable in New South Wales: "unspent" convictions for criminal offences (including 'major traffic offences' such as drink driving and driving whilst disqualified), unexpired good behaviour bonds for findings of guilt with no conviction (eg 'section 10 bonds' (now conditional release order without conviction) which have not finished, outstanding criminal charges, and unfinalised criminal court proceedings. All Australian jurisdictions except Victoria also have "spent convictions schemes" which allow for convictions for eligible minor offences to no longer appear on a check after a certain period of time. Law and Media Reports Information regarding your criminal case is unlikely to be restricted to a formal record check. Case names are normally listed on websites such as the online court registry, which are freely accessible. And many cases are also 'reported', which means the judgments are published in law reports as well as online. Some cases attract media attention and, provided the news reports are truthful, there is little a defendant can do to get rid of them, unless there is a suppression order or non-publication order, or the defendant is under the age of 18. Section15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prohibits the publication or broadcast of the names of children involved as offenders, witnesses, or brothers and sisters of child victims in criminal proceedings. This applies even after a person has been convicted. Unfortunately, unless a report violates a non-publication order, or is defamatory, there is very little that can be done in regard to media stories using your name. Under APP 13 of the Australian Privacy Principles, Australian entities must take reasonable steps to confirm and correct any personal information if it is satisfied the information is: Inaccurate, Out-of-date, Incomplete, Irrelevant, Misleading, or An individual requests the entity correct the information. However, media reporting has a habit of being misleading and inaccurate in ways that that make successful requests to take down information difficult. The nature of the internet can also make issuing take down notices akin to a game of Whac-A-Mole, with information duplicated across several websites making it almost impossible to purge damaging information. The Right to be Forgotten Given the harmful impact of law and media reports, some people have called for a 'right to be forgotten' to allow information to be taken down from websites and de-indexed from search engines after a certain time has passed. The right to be forgotten is enshrined in Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union and provides a right to request certain personal data be removed. In the 2009 case of Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez, the plaintiff (Gonzalez) applied to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to order Google to remove records of social security debts that were published in a Spanish newspaper in the late 90s. The ECJ found that members of the European Union had the right to ask search engines to remove links to their personal information, if the information was inadequate, irrelevant, excessive or inaccurate. To comply with the ruling, Google has created an online form for EU citizens to request information be removed. The Australian Law Reform Commission considered recommending a right to be forgotten in 2014, however due to a number of criticisms from media groups, this was dropped.