Youâve hit the nail on the head there. Same as the race report released yesterday; one of its aims is to cause divisions within the countryâs ethnic minorities.
Myanmar buys most of itâs hardware from China.
Weâre way beyond simply withholding hardware.
The outcome of the enquiry into the policeâs handling of the Bobby Storey funeral is interesting, particularly given the questions raised about the Sarah Everard gathering.
It really reiterates the point I was making about the clarity of the regulations and how they are making it harder for the police and organisations to manage these situations in a reasonable way.
Of course, the UK are dusputing the EUâs interpretation of the Trade Agreement soâŚcanât see how that action can be determined without determining the issue of interpertation.
From what Iâve seen the problem lies with the UK stating that the EU have changed the rules post Brexit. I suspect, its the interpretation as you rightly point out.
But I understand these cases are unlikely to hold water given that the advice the fisherman were given in the lead up to Brexit was not through official government releases etc. But interesting to see if it gets tested.
Yeh, the EU havenât changed the rules. Theyâve just interpreted the agreement in a way that the UK (so it says) wasnât anticipated or intended.
For the record, I think both sides have arguable claims here. Itâs not as clear as it should be.
is it actually possible to interpret the rules differently? Then again itâs the EUâs rules and I guess they can interpret them however they want. Is that a solid legal stance?
We must remember the accusation that the EU moved the goal posts came from George Useless.
I looked at this a while back so Iâm going from memory but as far as I recall the trade agreement confirms shellfish exports can continue in alignment with existing EU rules so that the UK wasnât treated as a 3rd country so its processing facilities were authorised. Then the EU changed those rules so that the UK facilities were now deemed unapproved.
The UK is arguing this was underhand and itâs kind of hard to disagree. Arguments of good faith will be prominent. Can the EU do this? Probably. Should they? Probably not.
This must surely be unlawful
Yes, exactly this. Youâve nailed it 
An interesting article from 2020 regarding whether or not protests are effective in bringing about change The main takeaway being that if you want your protest to succeed in the long term -ie effect change - then it is more beneficial to your cause to keep them peaceful.
âIn general, riots and other relatively extreme forms of protest are thought to generate pressure to address the problems causing the violence (Biggs & Andrews, 2015). However, research also suggests that extreme tactics generate backlash and that moderate and peaceful protests are more effective at winning public support.
Researchers studying different protest movements (animal rights, racial justice, partisan) recently found that compared to protests that used extreme tactics, including violence or the threat of violence, moderate peaceful protests generated more popular support and willingness to join the movements (Feinberg et al., 2020). The main reason for this was that people simply couldnât identify with more radical protesters or see them as people like themselves.â
Needless to say, a peaceful protest can be turned into a riot- and public opinion altered- by a few troublemakers paid for by those who want to maintain the status quo.
This is a well established tactic that governments the world over employ, and yet, somehow, it remains unknown to the public on the whole.