Some afterthoughts on the flooding in Germany that I think have not been stressed enough - but are important, whether for Germany or the UK or Canada or... anywhere really (short thread)
The debate about the floods have been difficult at times, there's been a lot of criticism of insufficient warnings. And I don't want to debate that away, but it misses an important point. /2
A lot of people in the world have had the privilege of living in locations that were climatically more or less safe. "Warnings" meant: maybe get stuff out of your cellar. Don't drive today. Red alerts often seemed to mean: "today no jogging". /3
Some people in flooded areas did receive a warning. They could not put the numbers involved in context. They knew floods. They did not know what THIS flood would mean. /4
The lesson is simple: Climate change means that entirely moderate climate no longer exists. We are all at risk. This concerns us all. You are not safe from heatwaves in Canada. You are not safe from endless tropical rain in Germany. There's nowhere to hide. /5
Oh and that silly "island nations offer safety when society collapses" thing?
Not sure they figured in rising sea levels.
We have to act.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's start off with some very very very basic facts: treaties are instruments concluded by two or more parties. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties actually defines them (I'll spare you details)
Treaties are binding. Art. 26 VCLT. Pacta sunt servanda.
A maybe-not-that curious observation on vaccination (though more interested in the federalism issue) with a question for historians on Eastern Europe. Let's start with some data from Germany (thread)
As Germany crossed the point of 60% of the population vaccinated once, let's look at the significant differences amongst German Länder
The first 8 Länder - all from former West Germany. The lowest 4 from East Germany (Germany has 16 Länder). West Germany ranges from 57.9% (Bavaria, shame on you) to 69% (Bremen). East Germany from 50.9% (Sachsen) to 58.5% (M-V) if you do not count Berlin at 59.1%.
What Lord Frost describes is not just the EU approach - but also the traditional UK approach. Indeed, the FC(D)O lays implementing legislation to parliament before ratification precisely for this reason - and the UK then becomes less flexible.
In fact, it describes normal treaty processes and a long-term reality of treaty law: there's lots of discussions about treaty-making, but once made treaties are relatively inflexible. /2
Treaty parties are trying to change this to some extent - which is why they establish treaty bodies with powers to change the content of the treaty a bit. But this comes with its own downsides. /3
Very grateful to @GeorgeFreemanMP for pointing to the source of some of the points he made on Newsnight. My worries about accuracy remain, though I now have to spread them around (short thread)
@GeorgeFreemanMP 1) On trade. The information here is quite different from the original statement. It is "where UK tariff reductions on imports from certain developing countries save exporters from those countries around £1 billion each year"
No reference to differences from EU tariffs, no reference to tariffs on food, no reference to Africa. And, to be honest, almost unverifiable what this refers to. Carrying over the EU's GSP policy including EBA? (Which would be really different from the original claim)?