If I were the Chinese government, looking to persuade people that its policies are not genocidal, I might hesitate here. Is “we’re just doing what you did” really the message you want to be sending out?
Someone commented that they weren’t sure whether laughter was the right response to this. I can see where they came from. But, actually, I think that laughter and mockery are precisely the right response to any absurdity by any government, however powerful it thinks it is.
And laughter is not incompatible with anger. Indeed, it can be anger’s deadliest weapon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
IMO it’s unwise - it sets an unhappy precedent - for a state to ban vaccine exports where contracts have been entered into. But I think there are dangers (as in other contexts critics of “judicial activism” are eager to point out) in extending the “rule of law” concept too far.
@SBarrettBar seems to regard any state interference with pre-existing contracts as a breach of the rule of law. But if that’s right, then eg legislating to increase tenants’ or employees’ rights, or banning exports of arms or cultural heritage is a breach of the rule of law.
Conceptually it’s better, I think, to regard such interference as an interference with property rights - in ECHR terms, an interference that engages Article 1 of Protocol 1.
Most political defenders of a market economy or capitalism - from Smith/Hayek to Thatcher - shy well away from that identification: indeed, they reject it.
That’s not just because greed is an unattractive characteristic. More profoundly, it’s because a market economy depends on respect for rules, trust, and responsibility: all of which are undermined by greed.
In short (as far as the UK is concerned - I’m not looking at the US position) the “one rule for us, another for you” criticism at the end of the thread isn’t warranted by the points made.
The UK has not behaved inconsistently with the principle that pharma co.s should be permitted to comply with binding contracts. In essence, the U.K. got better contracts (which, as the thread points out, is a function of earlier, strategic, and heavy investment).
“Wasted costs orders” are not, as appears to have been spun to @MrHarryCole, a whizzo new idea: they have existed for years. See these slides (found after 10 seconds on Google, so no excuse for any competent journalist not to spot this) for details. associationofcostslawyers.co.uk/write/MediaUpl…
As to the “good faith agreement”, that whizzo idea has also been thought of. See .2 here (from the Bar Code of Conduct). As any barrister would have told @MrHarryCole, had he asked.
There may possibly be something new here: but the job of a journalist (as opposed to a PR agent) is to pin down those spinning this sort of thing out until they explain what is actually new.
I agree: I rather liked the fact that (compared to e.g. the US) you tended not to see the UK flag much, either on display in everyday life or behind politicians. That sentiment is nothing to do with (lack of) patriotism: it's a dislike of performative patriotism.
King Lear's daughters come to mind: the ones who most loudly proclaim their emotions on demand are not necessarily those who genuinely have the emotion.
It is also - at the risk of repetition - the deal that was described, in the Conservative manifesto that @danielmgmoylan urged us all to vote for, as a “great new deal” that “takes the whole country out of the EU as one United Kingdom”.
I have tried hard to find in the Conservative manifesto the description of the deal as one that “Mr Johnson could not effectively renegotiate because [of] a crazed Parliament.” @danielmgmoylan will doubtless tell us where that description is to be found.