Maybe they could add something like this:
The question whether any official information is to be made available, where that question arises under this Act, shall be determined, except where this Act otherwise expressly requires, in accordance with the purposes of this Act and the principle that the information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.
I think this is Moroders greatest work:
I went to an unpublicised event in the bush some km from the nearest city.
No bars, BYO, a couple of thousand happy people, no aggro, no apparent cops, great music (depending on ones taste, obviously).
I nearly ran up the arse of that car that's now part of that tangle of broken bodies and scrap metal. Twice actually. When the driver simply stopped in the middle of the road. Both times on blind corners.
Illustrating another common (and dangerous misconception) that many NZers have:
FYI, the road code sez:
You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:
- you can stop suddenly behind a vehicle that you’re following – if a vehicle ahead of you stops suddenly and you run into the back of it, you will be legally responsible
- you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes.
If you're coming up to a blind corner, you have to slow down such that if there did happen to be a car parked in the middle of the road admiring the view, or whose engine suddenly seized, or who braked to a stop coz the proverbial child/dog/deer ran out in front of them. That's the rules, and it's pretty much the same everywhere in the world.
I love how you're attributing such a level of analytical thought to the UK electors, who've mostly been through an education system that equips them to ask and answer deep questions such as "would you like fries with that".
My belief is that it will be similar (if obviously different in nature) to the 73/74 coal dispute. That ended with a Labour government being elected with a mandate to settle - not because the electorate particularly favoured Labour or the miners cause, but due to a desire to restore normalcy.
The EU is a huge chunk of the world economy. It's an even bigger chunk of the bit (e.g. not Trump's US) that care about the WTO. If the WTO rules trouble them, then in realpolitik terms, they get to change the rules.
And the EU has, as a minimum, agreements of some sort on mutual recognition of standards, through shipping of freight and the like with most non-EU states (including all its neighbours). But not the UK.
The government and a large number of people in the UK are delusional.
All 27 EU states need to approve any deal, transitional or otherwise. They won't do anything against their real or imagined interests (Irish border, status of Gibraltar, French aircraft manufacturers, German and Czech car manufacturers, etc).
Britain's interactions with continental Europe depend on a range of agreements dating back to 1945 and before, almost all of which have been subsumed by the EU and require an agreement to reinstate/continue. These range from simple taxes, through importing regulated goods like car and aircraft parts, through simple things like flying or driving to the continent.
The most likely situation is a cliff edge exit. As of 29 March 2019, all freight leaving the UK will be unpacked and examined. Taxes (maybe 30%, or 60% if the EU decided to recoup the UKs debts through import tariffs) will need to be paid. Anything safety critical or requiring approval (car parts to food) will simply be refused.
As a result, much of the UK's industry and distribution sector will simply shut down. Unemployment will increase, probably to the point where the government will be no longer able to pay benefits.
Assuming the UK still gets to vote, then it's likely that a government will be elected with a mandate to fix the problem at any price. I'd see the resulting treaty as being based on re-acceptance of the full EU acquis. Maybe the UK will have a status somewhere between Greece and Bosnia, with European supervision of and veto over their government's actions.
Ok, so this might be difficult for people with the reasoning power of a powerful AI. I'll try to speak slowly.
If I want to take heroin, I'm concerned about the effect. I know the actual experience of jabbing the needle in bit is going to be unpleasantly painful.
I'm only interested in the purity of the drug.
If I decide I'd like a glass of the Chateau Musar, it's about $200 a 70cl bottle. That works out at about $2380 a litre of alcohol, of which about $29 is tax.
If I was, as with the smack, purely in there for the buzz, I could drink industrial ethanol at around $30/litre (almost entirely tax - industrial ethanol is about 40c a litre). Obviously there are some very irrational drug users out there.
alcohol as a drug
So, why bother with craft beer and vineyards and maturing single malt whiskies for 20 years? It's just a drug, why don't we just inject pure industrial ethanol into our eyeballs for a quick and cheap hit?