Westminstenders: The Mask is Slipping

[RedToothBrush]

This week has seen the department of the Chancellor who launched a 50p piece, the serious contemplation of a tin pot bridge, the rebirth of eugenics as a subject for cabinet, the announcement of the end of the BBC as we know it, the cabinet chanting after the PM in a way Orwell would be proud of, suppression of a report into trade deals which dares to mention the effect of distance and geography, worrying signs of an ever growing rift with Europe over negotiations for a deal, an appointment which starts to make our membership of the ECHR look very dodgy and there have been rather a lot of floods which so far seemed to have escaped the attention of those in London busy in their own swamp.

It's becoming apparent very quickly just how Trump like our new government are and how they want the UK to emulate the very worst aspects of America.

We are falling fast and its not looking like it will be pretty.

All we need is a major global issue to test our national resilience and the incompetence will truly be laid bare for us all to see... But not necessarily speak of. Such us the way it works.

Brexit Britain is not a nice looking prospect.

Any PM has to stand up and be accountable, has to reassure the public, whether that is after floods or fire or terrorist attack

Why ?

Or rather, what is the downside of Boris not doing that ? He's hardly going to suddenly become "not Prime Minister" is he ?

I thought we had all agreed that if nothing else, the old playbook was obsolete ? That being the case, why would Boris want to be an old-style PM ?

So I repeat my prediction: we won't see or hear anywhere near as much about Boris as previous PMs. Which is really not great loss. I'm sure our world-renowned media outlets will find something to fill the void he leaves.

Incidentally, isn't absentee premiership another hallmark of the tinpot dictator ? Very rare public appearances ...

I think @bluehighlighter is getting the word punishment mixed up with protection.

blue Checks are needed - needed by the babies
They are totally vulnerable, whether already "damaged" or not

A rich person's wish to buy a baby, as if they were just like any other product, should not overrule the needs of a baby

Social service checks are not only because adopted kids are more likely to be damaged in some way,
but because the state has a duty of care not to hand over a helpless baby or child to any random person with dosh

If we could wave a magic wand and all kids now available for adoption were totally healthy and not traumatised,
social services would not just abandon their checks

As I said, mum's friends had to go through checks in 1960 before being allowed to adopt a baby,
back when nearly all adopted babies had been given up for adoption only because the mother wasn't married.

Why do you want richer people to be able to create and buy babies without social service checks ?

Why don't you want at least basic checks for criminal records, previous allegations of child abuse, alcohol or drug abuse, age over 60 etc ?

I think they're still picking the flies out of the corners of that branch of Specsavers where Johnson slooshed a mop around and circulated the mud to all parts.

Meanwhile, hard as it may seem to believe, it seems Priti Patel is having a spot of bother with the staff:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51571619

Now, 'Permanent Secretary' ought to give you a clue.

"bluehighlighter is getting the word punishment mixed up with protection."

Exactly, jason

We keep coming back to how we respect the rights of fellow human beings

how we balance the right for business or individuals to do as they please vs the right of others not to be harmed or have a higher risk of harm.

btw, this reminds me of Brexiters seeing the EU's demand for checks to protect their SIngle Market as "punishment" !

Back to protection of Level Playing Field ....

Lewis Goodall@lewisgoodall

Spent last 24 hours talking to EU officials.

Can’t overestimate how spooked Brussels is by what they see as UK govt

a) rowing back on Irish protocol
b) pol declaration.

All said this will make deal difficult, not least because
“it contributes to an atmosphere of distrust.”

One official I spoke to said: “

before Monday I was 80% confident of a deal.
After Monday [Frost’s speech] I’m 50-60%.”

I'm wondering which countries the govt will look at next, to copy their immigration policy

e.g. Gulf countries employ migrant domestic workers under the “Kafala” system,
in which their employer holds their passport and has legal control over their ability to change jobs or leave the country.

So quitting a domestic job without permission means being arrested and jailed
(even if usually only for a couple of weeks)

I had that conversation on another thread. Some people seem to approve of the kafala system and would welcome it here. These are usually people who have a purely transactional view of immigration and no understanding of the human side of it.

These are usually people who have a purely transactional view of immigration and no understanding of the human side of it.

Because they don’t see “immigrants” as humans.

I have no problem with criminal record checks and similar for surrogacy, for offences which could affect a child. But not the massive level of checks and training required of parents adopting, which can take 3 years, and make no sense in a surrogacy situation.
I suppose you want these checks in all cases of people donating due to infertility?

Depends on the checks. If they are there for very good reasons (the child) any right minded wannabe parent (for whatever reason) should want them to be carried out. Waiting 3 years, vs the lifetime of a child, is nothing. The only prospective parents that should worry would be ones that may fall foul of the checks, QED.

"I suppose you want these checks in all cases of people donating due to infertility?"

No, because they are donating an egg,not a baby, a living human being

Only those who actually receive a baby from someone else, or from the state, should be subject to checks

Another example:
When people in their will nominate a guardian (not the other parent) for their children,
then if they die prematurely that prospective guardian would still be checked

A court would order investigations into how appropriate a guardian is and this takes about 4 months

It is unnecessary for prospective baby-buyers to undergo specific training to bring up disabled children

Anyway, it is very common that if babies are born disabled, the purchasers reject them as sub-standard and left with the mother
It's obviously impractical and dangerous to try to legally stop this.

So buyers are even less likely than natural parents to face this issue.

EU Commission Task Force has put up a new explanatory document,
with a handy chart

Trade Agreements: Geography and trade intensity

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/cwp-20200218-trade-geographyenn_0.pdf

1. Each agreement with a third country depends on a number of different factors,

including distance, and the level and intensity of trade we have with that particular country (see attached slide). All these factors matter and determine the content of the agreement.

o The UK will be the EU’s third largest trading partner, with EU27 imports from the UK worth € 197bn for 2018.
This represents almost 10 times more imports into the EU than Canada.
At the same time, Canada is some 5,000 km away.

o The combined imports from Canada, Japan, and South Korea into the EU for 2018 together (€ 125bn) are still considerably less than those of the UK alone (€ 197bn).

1. Therefore, comparing the situation of the UK to other countries, such as Canada, simply does not work.

< EU Commission's bolding, not mine >

Big choc- do you know anyone who has used a surrogate? You are quite almost vindictive about it.....
When in NYC one of my sons BF's was born by surrogate..... his mother had had a serious health condition, whose treatment was going to leave her sterile and possibly unable to have children. She had had a career and left children late. The only reason I know, is a little brother turned up, and she obviously hadn't been pregnant. We never talked much about it, but I know they used the same surrogate twice and she was in the children's life - like an aunt.

I just mention it as there seems a lot of vitriol on the subject...... and it's not always bad.

Surrogacy : friends of mine get their second surrogate child in a few weeks. For various reasons neither of them (both female) are able to carry the child. Their toddler is incredibly loved.

Adoption : another friend provides emergency foster care for kids removed from parents. Many have emotional needs WAY beyond the capabilities of most people.

Do not judge based on news coverage

It is about principle for me:

I am against the exploitation of poor often desperate women as incubators by rich men & women - not the cases where women do this for love of a friend or relative

Also, the mother should have the absolute right to change her mind about giving up the baby she has given birth to, including for several weeks after birth

I see that some groups in the UK have proposed new laws to reduce the rights of the mother / incubator

I am against people being able to buy a baby without the checks they would undergo for adoption or guardianship
Why would any decent parent want to avoid such checks, even if they take a year to do.

Checks should be of the level of an in-depth DBS, so not just actual convictions,
at least the level to work in schools & care homes,
plus checks on alcohol or drug abuse,
repeated loss of licence for dangerous driving,
reasonable health so they are not statistically likely to drop dead within a few years etc

These are not children who already exist and would benefit from an adoptive home
They are being created to please adults

Totally different motivation

Back to Brexit:

I read some Brexiters are referring to a "Vichy Parliament"
(they mean the old one)
to justify ignoring the NI protocol

We saw this term used last year by e.g. Brexit Watch on Conservative Women

I just mention it as there seems a lot of vitriol on the subject...... and it's not always bad.

There is always the potential for it to turn out badly though. What is the child is born with a serious health problem, or if the surrogate dies in childbirth leaving existing children motherless?

In this situation, who bears the societal cost, and the cost to other people, of two rich people deciding that their right to have children is greater than the rights of all the other people involved? Because let's be clear about this - the child has no say in the matter, and the surrogate may be subject to external pressures that make her consent questionable.

I'm not strictly against surrogacy but it is IMO it is essentially just a specific type of adoption and should be subject to the same controls and criteria.

Now a man has been stabbed at Regents Park Mosque.

.

I read some Brexiters are referring to a "Vichy Parliament"
(they mean the old one)

Do you mean fascist collaborator / traitor Petain's parliament?
In what context do they use that reference? I'm appalled but also not sure I get it.

*Nazi collaborator rather. (Though the regime itself was fascist)

I read some Brexiters are referring to a "Vichy Parliament"
(they mean the old one) [] Do you mean fascist collaborator / traitor Petain's parliament? In what context do they use that reference? I'm appalled but also not sure I get it.

I'm guessing they are suggesting that Ireland should be entirely governed by the UK, and that Stormont is in fact collaborating with the enemy.

It's not so much the Brexiteers twisting of history that gets me - after all there's probably nothing they wouldn't stoop too anyway.

It's more the inability (whether through fear, ignorance, or wilful understanding) of the press to rebut such whoppers with the truth.