The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally by a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……
You could tell by the body language of the Australians during the anthems....they didnt want to be there. Portugal on the other hand...brilliant. Can we see Eddie Jones please??
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Europes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
I realise this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of yours, but if you look at the data, Germany is being massacred by two things:
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
In my younger days I used to be a marketing manager, I can identify a sheep farmer from the way he expresses himself
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Europes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
That's true but roads should be getting built (and not just in London) because investment in our infrastructure is critical to having a healthy economy and our population is growing. Even the Romans knew the importance of investing in roads and that was 2 millennia ago.
And you're being overly polite, the Kiwis like the Welsh are sheep shaggers ...
Raab attempted a British Bill of Rights (not necessarily a bad idea unto itself) and he was too roid-raged to deliver it. It now sits in the overflowing skip of broken Tory promises.
Of all the issues facing Britain, what kind of clown-tard decides the key priority is to leave the ECHR? Only bad actors and the very naive.
It's a pointless discussion. Labour won't do it.
The Tories are becalmed; they have one more King's Speech ahead of them and Dogshit Sunak seems determined to give it over to unwinding legislation passed when he was chancellor and taking powers back from parish councils. Then they'll be out of power for the rest of the decade at least. Who cares what they think?
I am all for criticism of Sunak, including satirical nicknames, but I really don't see what you're going for with 'dogshit Sunak'. It's extremely crass.
Ah well, crass is as crass does...
But you're right, he's hasn't actually announced a dogshit policy yet - and, in retrospect, expecting him to do anything so community-minded as to show an interest in the public realm was rather unrealistic.
So, Bollard Boy? Pothole Plonker? Or maybe in the next few days he'll come up with some sort of policy that's worthy of his office...
RT- off topic, but to follow up a comment made by you yesterday, which had me wondering: what's the rationale of banning tree felling off your own land? Over and atop the criminal damage?
Is it H&S, or the crime of killing something peculiarly irreplaceable? Or to stop developers converting a wood to a fait accompli?
Apologies Carnyx I was out this morning at the East Markham Apple Day so only just saw your question.
I don't know for certain but I would assume it is designed to put a speedbump in the process. It is actually very easy to get a licence to cut down a tree so long as you can show a reasonable justification. I think it is because a tree can take decades or centuries to get to maturity and are a vital ecosystem in themselves (over 2000 different species live on oaks with over 300 of them being entirely dependent on oaks) so it is designed to stop the thougtless destruction of mature trees on a whim. Hence I asume the reason that it only applies to trees over 5m3 in volume.
But is there a word missing in the title? "ON THE PROPOSAL FOR THE UK TO THE ECHR"
'Leave', perhaps?
Anyway, IANAL, but the balance of powers between politicians and the law is a difficult one, and should only be changed with extreme care. Politicians will always want more power.
Yes, quite right. "Leave".
Not my title. My original choice was considerably more provocative.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
In my younger days I used to be a marketing manager, I can identify a sheep farmer from the way he expresses himself
I’m not a sheep farmer, though. So I guess we can usefully ignore your “experience” as all it seems to have set you up for is a disposition for pederasty and shitposting.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Europes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
That's true but roads should be getting built (and not just in London) because investment in our infrastructure is critical to having a healthy economy and our population is growing. Even the Romans knew the importance of investing in roads and that was 2 millennia ago.
And you're being overly polite, the Kiwis like the Welsh are sheep shaggers ...
The UK is totally crap at infrastructure, its why our productivity is so poor.
Laura K should have asked Sunaks views on leaving the ECHR . Perhaps she could have asked him his thoughts on breaching the GFA if the UK left . She could also have asked him the message leaving the convention sends to the rest of the world especially at this time of war in Ukraine and the resultant human rights abuses by Russia .
Does the UK at this time want to be clumped together with Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not in the ECHR .
And that’s exactly the issue.
The Belfast Agreement is important. But the ECHR component is not - there would need to be negotiation to replace it with a suitable body (or to retain it specifically for this purpose).
What you are saying is that the democratically elected government of the UK should be prevented from pursuing an action of which you disapprove because reasons.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
I realise this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of yours, but if you look at the data, Germany is being massacred by two things:
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
You keep making this fallacy, which is strange.
LNG gas on ships is fungible.
The price of gas and flow of gas pipelines is most definitely not.
Which is why Russia is struggling to adopt to Europe turning off consumption even though China wants gas, the pipes simply go to the wrong place.
And why Germany is struggling too and having to spend tens of billions of euros adapting it's gas imports to alternatives.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
In my younger days I used to be a marketing manager, I can identify a sheep farmer from the way he expresses himself
I’m not a sheep farmer, though. So I guess we can usefully ignore your “experience” as all it seems to have set you up for is a disposition for pederasty and shitposting.
low brow insults are standard fare among sheep farmers.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
In my younger days I used to be a marketing manager, I can identify a sheep farmer from the way he expresses himself
I’m not a sheep farmer, though. So I guess we can usefully ignore your “experience” as all it seems to have set you up for is a disposition for pederasty and shitposting.
low brow insults are standard fare among sheep farmers.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
I realise this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of yours, but if you look at the data, Germany is being massacred by two things:
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
It seems clear that some of the industry is affected more than elsewhere, and was in Germany for the cheap gas:
We should be glad that we have a PM immune to flip-flopping on important issues such as climate change, pollution, HS2 etc. Or is there a range in blue too?
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Don't you enjoy being royally butt-fucked on a daily basis?
We have infrastructure projects up and down the country that should have been getting built for years now that Sunak won't come out and confirm will or won't be built.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
In my younger days I used to be a marketing manager, I can identify a sheep farmer from the way he expresses himself
I’m not a sheep farmer, though. So I guess we can usefully ignore your “experience” as all it seems to have set you up for is a disposition for pederasty and shitposting.
low brow insults are standard fare among sheep farmers.
Oh? What do you have? Blackface or Cheviot?
Who looks at the mantlepiece when poking the fire?
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
I realise this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of yours, but if you look at the data, Germany is being massacred by two things:
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
Some big assumptions there Roberto.
Germany exports to the world and while China is a major client the whole of German industry exports across the world. My brother works in a Mittelstandler selling capital goods, they havent sold a single machine to China. German exports to china were circa 7% of the total.
Demand in Germany is down across the board including internal demand since people hve no money.
As for the cars yes re EVs, but the German industry bet the farm on diesel and cheated in the process. Merkel's mob knew they were doing it and turned a blind eye, They are reaping what they sowed.
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Don't you enjoy being royally butt-fucked on a daily basis?
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
I realise this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of yours, but if you look at the data, Germany is being massacred by two things:
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
Some big assumptions there Roberto.
Germany exports to the world and while China is a major client the whole of German industry exports across the world. My brother works in a Mittelstandler selling capital goods, they havent sold a single machine to China. German exports to china were circa 7% of the total.
Demand in Germany is down across the board including internal demand since people hve no money.
As for the cars yes re EVs, but the German industry bet the farm on diesel and cheated in the process. Merkel's mob knew they were doing it and turned a blind eye, They are reaping what they sowed.
It took Merkel drop kicking the German motor industry in the nuts, by encouraging the Tesla factory in Berlin, to get them to wake up. A bit.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
Britain’s issues are Merkel’s fault, are they? I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
The economic slow down came from Eureopes over reliance on Putins gas and oil.
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
I’m not in the sheep farming business. Why would you think I am?
In my younger days I used to be a marketing manager, I can identify a sheep farmer from the way he expresses himself
I’m not a sheep farmer, though. So I guess we can usefully ignore your “experience” as all it seems to have set you up for is a disposition for pederasty and shitposting.
low brow insults are standard fare among sheep farmers.
Oh? What do you have? Blackface or Cheviot?
Who looks at the mantlepiece when poking the fire?
That's the second day running I have learnt a new expression on PB!
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Number 10 has good reason to be angsty that the united and confident display it wants to stage may be sabotaged by noises off. The nightmare scenario for Number 10 is that its attempt to project the prime minister as a man with an action plan to stay in government is occluded by naked competition between the wannabes to take over the Tories in opposition.
The hope in Number 10 was that he would ultimately get some credit for fixing the mess that he inherited. This rather depended on voters forgetting that it was a stramash of his own party’s creation, but it was the best plan available to him. It still is, really. Bar Labour committing an unexpectedly catastrophic error, the Conservatives’ most credible chance of recovery is an improvement to the economic climate.
My conclusion about the turmoil we’ve witnessed over recent weeks is that the prime minister has lost faith in what was his core strategy. The man who once projected himself as Steady Sunak is now adopting the persona of Risky Rishi. The novelty is that the attack has been concentrated not on Labour, but on the record of his Conservative predecessors… the dividing lines he has drawn attention to are the ones splitting his own party. Some of the angriest voices about the retreats on net zero belong to green-minded Conservatives. Some of the most furious opposition to tearing up high-speed rail comes from big Tory names who favour bold infrastructure projects, such as Michael Heseltine and George Osborne who condemned it as “an act of huge economic self-harm”.
Mr Sunak’s notions about what he would do with a fifth Tory term is an eclectic stable of hobby-horses. These include slashing inheritance tax, a “crackdown” on parking charges, moving in the direction of a total ban on smoking, replacing A-levels with a baccalaureate and (this we’ve heard before) making maths compulsory to the age of 18. This is not a coherent political philosophy. It is an expression of the prime minister’s pet likes and hates. This is not a refreshment of Conservatism. Nor is it a mission for government. And it most definitely does not amount to long-term decisions for a brighter future.
In case there's any confusion @Cyclefree I'm not suggesting we do without courts, I 100% completely agree with you that there should be courts.
I simply believe that Parliament ought to be able to change laws to override courts decisions in the end, if Parliament does so democratically. Which is what our Supreme Court still says itself.
Rather than unelected courts overriding laws that have been passed by Parliament, as happens in the likes of the USA etc.
If the government of the day doesn't change the law and acts illegally of course courts should be able to rule accordingly. But if the government does change the law, then that is democracy.
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Unelected courts do not have unrestricted powers. It is politicians seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, not just overseas but in Britain who are the threat. But you refuse to see it.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Don't you enjoy being royally butt-fucked on a daily basis?
Not my cup of tea. Is it yours?
Does National TV make a difference (he asked helpfully)?
Laura K should have asked Sunaks views on leaving the ECHR . Perhaps she could have asked him his thoughts on breaching the GFA if the UK left . She could also have asked him the message leaving the convention sends to the rest of the world especially at this time of war in Ukraine and the resultant human rights abuses by Russia .
Does the UK at this time want to be clumped together with Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not in the ECHR .
Russia is an argument against the ECHR, not an argument in its favour. Putin's Russia was deemed ECHR-compatible until last year despite the lack of free elections, free press, or any form of freedom.
I'd rather the UK be clumped together with Canada, Australia and New Zealand and other Westminster-style democracies.
How many of them are in the ECHR?
Can you explain what happens to the GFA ? Leaving the ECHR breaks the GFA , that’s a fact . It also puts security co-operation at risk with the EU . Do you seriously trust the Tories to defend your rights , the same party which has tried to trash judicial reviews and bring in anti protest legislation and clear attempts to disenfranchise voters .
Northern Ireland would remain in it.
That’s not possible legally . If the UK leaves NI goes with it . NI by itself cannot be a signatory to the convention.
Well it depends. The UK could vote to be a signatory applying it only to NI. That would be our choice if so.
Or we could choose otherwise. That's democracy.
That’s not how it works . You can’t just decide who it applies to. Let’s say you could re-negotiate the GFA . You’d be asking those in NI to lose their existing rights . That might be possible with the Unionists but won’t be accepted by the nationalist community .
You’d also need the USA and Ireland to agree to re-negotiate . We saw with Brexit just how well the head in the sand approach worked for NI !
It seems very unsatisfactory to just let this situation with the ECHR go on and on. Politically I wonder if it would be a plausible strategy to just set out how it is wrong and then temporarily stop adhering to its judgements where there is a conflict with national security. It looks like many other countries are having the same problems with the ECHR and it feels like there is scope to get fundamental reforms through.
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Unelected courts do not have unrestricted powers. It is politicians seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, not just overseas but in Britain who are the threat. But you refuse to see it.
In America and elsewhere unelected courts absolutely do have too many powers. Any court that can strike down primary legislation is going too far, thankfully our own Supreme Court does not do that - and that should continue.
Absolutely courts should have jurisdiction, within the law, but within the law as determined by Parliament, not outwith it. If Parliament changes the law, then the Courts should reflect that, we shouldn't instead be seeking to change the composition of Courts to get our way.
Laura K should have asked Sunaks views on leaving the ECHR . Perhaps she could have asked him his thoughts on breaching the GFA if the UK left . She could also have asked him the message leaving the convention sends to the rest of the world especially at this time of war in Ukraine and the resultant human rights abuses by Russia .
Does the UK at this time want to be clumped together with Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not in the ECHR .
And that’s exactly the issue.
The Belfast Agreement is important. But the ECHR component is not - there would need to be negotiation to replace it with a suitable body (or to retain it specifically for this purpose).
What you are saying is that the democratically elected government of the UK should be prevented from pursuing an action of which you disapprove because reasons.
The UK can choose to withdraw from the ECHR . No one can force it to remain but it will need to accept the consequences of its actions. We heard a load of tosh before Brexit from uninformed politicians about the impact on NI . And I’m sure the usual suspects will be wheeled out to talk garbage again and try and dupe the uniformed into voting their rights away .
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Unelected courts do not have unrestricted powers. It is politicians seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, not just overseas but in Britain who are the threat. But you refuse to see it.
In America and elsewhere unelected courts absolutely do have too many powers. Any court that can strike down primary legislation is going too far, thankfully our own Supreme Court does not do that - and that should continue.
Absolutely courts should have jurisdiction, within the law, but within the law as determined by Parliament, not outwith it. If Parliament changes the law, then the Courts should reflect that, we shouldn't instead be seeking to change the composition of Courts to get our way.
Yes, it’s as much about checks and balances as about strong courts per se.
The end of Laura K’s trilogy petered out with a somewhat anticlimactic conclusion that the British system worked because it got rid of two inadequate unsuitable PMs in rapid succession (with an unspoken invitation to compare the US), but that is a point….
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Unelected courts do not have unrestricted powers. It is politicians seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, not just overseas but in Britain who are the threat. But you refuse to see it.
And from this morning's interview:
“No one voted for what you are doing. Are you relaxed about that?”
“Yes, because I’m doing what I think is right.”
The only thing democracy definitely gives the electorate is an option to vote a government out, possibly 5 years later.
That's probably insufficient, check and balance wise.
It seems very unsatisfactory to just let this situation with the ECHR go on and on. Politically I wonder if it would be a plausible strategy to just set out how it is wrong and then temporarily stop adhering to its judgements where there is a conflict with national security. It looks like many other countries are having the same problems with the ECHR and it feels like there is scope to get fundamental reforms through.
There’s nothing in the convention that any sane person wouldn’t agree with . You could perhaps look at some of the interpretation around it . I’m not saying there aren’t issues but we do need protection against our government . We’re not guaranteed to keep the current judiciary because we’ve already seen threats by the Tories when they make rulings that the politburo aren’t happy with. Personally I’m much happier knowing a Supra national court is making the final ruling as it does reduce political interference.
Raab attempted a British Bill of Rights (not necessarily a bad idea unto itself) and he was too roid-raged to deliver it. It now sits in the overflowing skip of broken Tory promises.
Of all the issues facing Britain, what kind of clown-tard decides the key priority is to leave the ECHR? Only bad actors and the very naive.
It's a pointless discussion. Labour won't do it.
The Tories are becalmed; they have one more King's Speech ahead of them and Dogshit Sunak seems determined to give it over to unwinding legislation passed when he was chancellor and taking powers back from parish councils. Then they'll be out of power for the rest of the decade at least. Who cares what they think?
I am all for criticism of Sunak, including satirical nicknames, but I really don't see what you're going for with 'dogshit Sunak'. It's extremely crass.
I think it’s quite good. I also like Richey Rish, which I think works better than Rishi Rich.
Good how? Has he announced a dogshit policy or something?
That’s the joke. It obviously went over your head. He’s reduced to cones hotlines, bus lane enforcement, and dog shit monitoring.
Not really funny if you ask me, but whatever tickles your pickle.
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Unelected courts do not have unrestricted powers. It is politicians seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, not just overseas but in Britain who are the threat. But you refuse to see it.
And from this morning's interview:
“No one voted for what you are doing. Are you relaxed about that?”
“Yes, because I’m doing what I think is right.”
The only thing democracy definitely gives the electorate is an option to vote a government out, possibly 5 years later.
That's probably insufficient, check and balance wise.
If the PM can't convince a majority of the Commons to go with him, then he can't change the law and they may change the PM instead. See: May, Johnson and Truss.
Easier for the voters to change the composition of Parliament to change the law, than to change a corrupted Court. See: Clarence Thomas.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Don't you enjoy being royally butt-fucked on a daily basis?
We have infrastructure projects up and down the country that should have been getting built for years now that Sunak won't come out and confirm will or won't be built.
Purely hypothetically...
If Rishi's plan were to flog off the scattered remaining assets of the UK at 30p in the pound, in the vague hope of funding the pension liabilities, how would it look different to what's currently happening?
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
No one authority should have unrestricted power and that includes unelected courts.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Unelected courts do not have unrestricted powers. It is politicians seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, not just overseas but in Britain who are the threat. But you refuse to see it.
And from this morning's interview:
“No one voted for what you are doing. Are you relaxed about that?”
“Yes, because I’m doing what I think is right.”
The only thing democracy definitely gives the electorate is an option to vote a government out, possibly 5 years later.
That's probably insufficient, check and balance wise.
If the PM can't convince a majority of the Commons to go with him, then he can't change the law and they may change the PM instead. See: May, Johnson and Truss.
Easier for the voters to change the composition of Parliament to change the law, than to change a corrupted Court. See: Clarence Thomas.
That’s actually the settled opinion of the U.K. Supreme Court - IIRC, they have ruled several times that X is a competency of the U.K. Parliament and therefore beyond their remit.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
Musky Baby being the champion of free speech once more.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
We have lots of limits on the dictatorship of the FPTP majority - the House of Lords, the monarchy, the Supreme Court, a free press, public opinion, centuries of precedent on minority rights and democracy, the opinion of foreign countries, the occasional referendum, etc etc etc. I don't think a bunch of unelected, unaccountable foreign judges and their associated hangers-on really add much to that. Canada, the United States and Australia somehow manage to uphold human rights a lot better than some of the countries that are subject to the ECHR, and not because they have constitutions, which many of the world's most dictatorial countries also have.
I don't think their decisions are demonstrably better overall than Parliament's, and at least when Parliament messes up, we can change it at the next election. We're stuck with those judges, however idiotic. Or, maybe, soon we won't be.
The way to avoid a government that executes people of a certain religion is to not vote for such a government, and to vote against anyone advocating that.
Foreign courts are no bulwark.
The ECHR has failed on its own merits. Putin's Russia was a fully fledged member of the ECHR until last year - despite being an authoritarian one party dictatorship that has no free press, no free elections and routinely murders dissidents.
You keep coming out with this stupid argument. It is stupid because it's like saying that there is no point having laws against murder because, look, over there is a man who keeps murdering people.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
Perhaps, Cyclefree, there is a problem with both positions. Those who would remain in the ECHR have to live with the possibility/fact that a rather remote court extends and extends rights and duties to a point where the poor old demos finds it unacceptable to put up with it.
And those who would leave the ECHR you suspect (and I agree) of having a hate filled agenda which unchecked will become deeply horrible.
A theme develops, and maybe its time will come:
On ECHR we need a simpler and more basic one.
On the Refugee Convention we need a new and realistic one with global parity (with, BTW the principal aim and objective of improving the quality of government in countries being fled).
And on the EU (too late now but obvious really) neither Leave nor Remain were sane positions in 2016. But Reform and Variable Geometry was and remains essential. We would then rejoin in a heartbeat.
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
We may not always need the ECHR as a backstop, but sometimes, e.g. under the current government, we do.
It seems very unsatisfactory to just let this situation with the ECHR go on and on. Politically I wonder if it would be a plausible strategy to just set out how it is wrong and then temporarily stop adhering to its judgements where there is a conflict with national security. It looks like many other countries are having the same problems with the ECHR and it feels like there is scope to get fundamental reforms through.
There’s nothing in the convention that any sane person wouldn’t agree with . You could perhaps look at some of the interpretation around it . I’m not saying there aren’t issues but we do need protection against our government . We’re not guaranteed to keep the current judiciary because we’ve already seen threats by the Tories when they make rulings that the politburo aren’t happy with. Personally I’m much happier knowing a Supra national court is making the final ruling as it does reduce political interference.
One thing the Torues are far far better at than Labour under Starmer or most recent Labour leaders, is forcing topics on to the national agenda and getting people to talk about them, even if they are divisive.
To name a few: Small boats and Rwanda, HS2, the 2030 ICE ban and the various other recent bonfire of green announcements, the ECHR, replacing A levels with a Bacc, Truss tax cuts. When you force something on to the agenda you tend to turn it from something where’s there’s consensus or apathy, to something that divides opinion.
What has Labour managed to do similarly? In recent times only private school VAT as far as I can see, and that half heartedly. Other smaller opposition parties show it can be done: Farage with Brexit, the SNP with Indy and more recently trans self-ID, the Lib Dems with sewage and energy price support / windfall taxes.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
I am against leaving the ECHR (because of the international precedent it would set) but this silly thread header moves me closer to wanting to leave.
The suggestion in there that we ought to have an external set of standards which our parliament cannot amend always irritates me. You either believe in democracy or you do not, and therefore the right of “the other lot” to do things you hate or you do not*. It is plain to me that many on my side of the argument (retaining the ECHR) don’t really think a chunk of the British population should never get its way. And that does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
*And let’s not dwell on edge cases like the Nazis. Our guard against such horrors lies elsewhere in the constitution, in the crown itself.
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
We have lots of limits on the dictatorship of the FPTP majority - the House of Lords, the monarchy, the Supreme Court, a free press, public opinion, centuries of precedent on minority rights and democracy, the opinion of foreign countries, the occasional referendum, etc etc etc. I don't think a bunch of unelected, unaccountable foreign judges and their associated hangers-on really add much to that. Canada, the United States and Australia somehow manage to uphold human rights a lot better than some of the countries that are subject to the ECHR, and not because they have constitutions, which many of the world's most dictatorial countries also have.
I don't think their decisions are demonstrably better overall than Parliament's, and at least when Parliament messes up, we can change it at the next election. We're stuck with those judges, however idiotic. Or, maybe, soon we won't be.
You’re assuming that bad faith actors in the future won’t try and erode those institutions. The Tories have in the past threatened to politicize the SC because it issued judgements the government didn’t like . They’ve also threatened to ignore judicial reviews or limit their scope . The way the Tory party is going we need more protection not less .
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
We have lots of limits on the dictatorship of the FPTP majority - the House of Lords, the monarchy, the Supreme Court, a free press, public opinion, centuries of precedent on minority rights and democracy, the opinion of foreign countries, the occasional referendum, etc etc etc. I don't think a bunch of unelected, unaccountable foreign judges and their associated hangers-on really add much to that. Canada, the United States and Australia somehow manage to uphold human rights a lot better than some of the countries that are subject to the ECHR, and not because they have constitutions, which many of the world's most dictatorial countries also have.
I don't think their decisions are demonstrably better overall than Parliament's, and at least when Parliament messes up, we can change it at the next election. We're stuck with those judges, however idiotic. Or, maybe, soon we won't be.
You’re assuming that bad faith actors in the future won’t try and erode those institutions. The Tories have in the past threatened to politicize the SC because it issued judgements the government didn’t like . They’ve also threatened to ignore judicial reviews or limit their scope . The way the Tory party is going we need more protection not less .
You're assuming that bad faith actors in the future won't try and corrupt the courts.
Its easier for voters to change a corrupt Parliament, than a corrupt court that can override Parliament.
The SC should interpret the laws passed by Parliament, if Parliament doesn't like the SC's rulings it can and should be able to change the law, not change the Court. Then the Court should interpret the new law.
If in the future a politicised European Court of Human Rights were to interpret Article 2 ("right to life") as criminalising and outlawing abortion, then should that be allowed to stand even if Parliament wants abortion to be legal?
It seems very unsatisfactory to just let this situation with the ECHR go on and on. Politically I wonder if it would be a plausible strategy to just set out how it is wrong and then temporarily stop adhering to its judgements where there is a conflict with national security. It looks like many other countries are having the same problems with the ECHR and it feels like there is scope to get fundamental reforms through.
There’s nothing in the convention that any sane person wouldn’t agree with . You could perhaps look at some of the interpretation around it . I’m not saying there aren’t issues but we do need protection against our government . We’re not guaranteed to keep the current judiciary because we’ve already seen threats by the Tories when they make rulings that the politburo aren’t happy with. Personally I’m much happier knowing a Supra national court is making the final ruling as it does reduce political interference.
One thing the Torues are far far better at than Labour under Starmer or most recent Labour leaders, is forcing topics on to the national agenda and getting people to talk about them, even if they are divisive.
To name a few: Small boats and Rwanda, HS2, the 2030 ICE ban and the various other recent bonfire of green announcements, the ECHR, replacing A levels with a Bacc, Truss tax cuts. When you force something on to the agenda you tend to turn it from something where’s there’s consensus or apathy, to something that divides opinion.
What has Labour managed to do similarly? In recent times only private school VAT as far as I can see, and that half heartedly. Other smaller opposition parties show it can be done: Farage with Brexit, the SNP with Indy and more recently trans self-ID, the Lib Dems with sewage and energy price support / windfall taxes.
It seems very unsatisfactory to just let this situation with the ECHR go on and on. Politically I wonder if it would be a plausible strategy to just set out how it is wrong and then temporarily stop adhering to its judgements where there is a conflict with national security. It looks like many other countries are having the same problems with the ECHR and it feels like there is scope to get fundamental reforms through.
There’s nothing in the convention that any sane person wouldn’t agree with . You could perhaps look at some of the interpretation around it . I’m not saying there aren’t issues but we do need protection against our government . We’re not guaranteed to keep the current judiciary because we’ve already seen threats by the Tories when they make rulings that the politburo aren’t happy with. Personally I’m much happier knowing a Supra national court is making the final ruling as it does reduce political interference.
One thing the Torues are far far better at than Labour under Starmer or most recent Labour leaders, is forcing topics on to the national agenda and getting people to talk about them, even if they are divisive.
To name a few: Small boats and Rwanda, HS2, the 2030 ICE ban and the various other recent bonfire of green announcements, the ECHR, replacing A levels with a Bacc, Truss tax cuts. When you force something on to the agenda you tend to turn it from something where’s there’s consensus or apathy, to something that divides opinion.
What has Labour managed to do similarly? In recent times only private school VAT as far as I can see, and that half heartedly. Other smaller opposition parties show it can be done: Farage with Brexit, the SNP with Indy and more recently trans self-ID, the Lib Dems with sewage and energy price support / windfall taxes.
Favourable press willing to do the running?
The bully pulpit of government also helps.
The bully XL pulpit doesn't seem to be working very well. Tail wagging the governmental dog, I reckon.
This is the kind of crap that annoys me. It’s going to make me defend Michael Green. Everything I read suggested “at some point in the future” and never suggested anything sooner, so to coin a phrase: NOTHING HAS CHANGED. An attempt to make a story from nothing.
Somebody suggested dropping Italy from 6N and replacing them with SA. Instead lets have a 7N including Portugal - they deserve it
Maybe an 8 Nations with two groups of four drawn on seedings with the top two from the groups playing off. Effectively a European championships. Might need to do it in the middle of World Cup cycles so that year there is no 6nations.
It would give chances for second tier European nations to get regular competition and something for them to aim for outside of the European second tier competition to boost their rankings to get into the new tournament.
So the two top teams from the current European tier two tournament the year before go through to 8 Nations.
The abandonment of plans for the Lower Thames Crossing is depressing.
As one half of a reasonably well-paid couple of professionals, what incentive is Rishi Sunak providing me to return to the UK and resume paying a six figure tax bill?
Less than zero.
Why would he want someone who wont vote for him?
Quite so.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
The latest GDP revisions suggest were doing better compared to the neighbours since you left.
The US has also revised up its GDP.
Yup, Europe is struggling, it's the post Merkel hangover,
What’s Merkel got to do with the Tory’s anti-growth programme?
Quite a bit, she bet the farm on Putin and slowed the whole economy of Europe down when it went wrong. Were feeling the effects,
I realise this is a bit of a hobbyhorse of yours, but if you look at the data, Germany is being massacred by two things:
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
Some big assumptions there Roberto.
Germany exports to the world and while China is a major client the whole of German industry exports across the world. My brother works in a Mittelstandler selling capital goods, they havent sold a single machine to China. German exports to china were circa 7% of the total.
Demand in Germany is down across the board including internal demand since people hve no money.
As for the cars yes re EVs, but the German industry bet the farm on diesel and cheated in the process. Merkel's mob knew they were doing it and turned a blind eye, They are reaping what they sowed.
It took Merkel drop kicking the German motor industry in the nuts, by encouraging the Tesla factory in Berlin, to get them to wake up. A bit.
A bit before we did.
I may be recalling incorrectly, but I seem to remember Alanbrooke downplaying the future significance of EVs around the time of Brexit.
Laura K should have asked Sunaks views on leaving the ECHR . Perhaps she could have asked him his thoughts on breaching the GFA if the UK left . She could also have asked him the message leaving the convention sends to the rest of the world especially at this time of war in Ukraine and the resultant human rights abuses by Russia .
Does the UK at this time want to be clumped together with Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not in the ECHR .
And that’s exactly the issue.
The Belfast Agreement is important. But the ECHR component is not - there would need to be negotiation to replace it with a suitable body (or to retain it specifically for this purpose).
What you are saying is that the democratically elected government of the UK should be prevented from pursuing an action of which you disapprove because reasons.
The UK can choose to withdraw from the ECHR . No one can force it to remain but it will need to accept the consequences of its actions. We heard a load of tosh before Brexit from uninformed politicians about the impact on NI . And I’m sure the usual suspects will be wheeled out to talk garbage again and try and dupe the uniformed into voting their rights away .
This is critical. Whatever you think of the ECHR in narrow terms, Britain does not exist in splendid isolation. Leaving international organisations has effects.
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
We have lots of limits on the dictatorship of the FPTP majority - the House of Lords, the monarchy, the Supreme Court, a free press, public opinion, centuries of precedent on minority rights and democracy, the opinion of foreign countries, the occasional referendum, etc etc etc. I don't think a bunch of unelected, unaccountable foreign judges and their associated hangers-on really add much to that. Canada, the United States and Australia somehow manage to uphold human rights a lot better than some of the countries that are subject to the ECHR, and not because they have constitutions, which many of the world's most dictatorial countries also have.
I don't think their decisions are demonstrably better overall than Parliament's, and at least when Parliament messes up, we can change it at the next election. We're stuck with those judges, however idiotic. Or, maybe, soon we won't be.
You’re assuming that bad faith actors in the future won’t try and erode those institutions. The Tories have in the past threatened to politicize the SC because it issued judgements the government didn’t like . They’ve also threatened to ignore judicial reviews or limit their scope . The way the Tory party is going we need more protection not less .
You're assuming that bad faith actors in the future won't try and corrupt the courts.
Its easier for voters to change a corrupt Parliament, than a corrupt court that can override Parliament.
The SC should interpret the laws passed by Parliament, if Parliament doesn't like the SC's rulings it can and should be able to change the law, not change the Court. Then the Court should interpret the new law.
If in the future a politicised European Court of Human Rights were to interpret Article 2 ("right to life") as criminalising and outlawing abortion, then should that be allowed to stand even if Parliament wants abortion to be legal?
That’s an interesting point . But it hasn’t done that and unlikely it ever would as that would effectively end the court . You’d only have a few members left like Poland and Malta .
I have just arrived back from almost three weeks in France, mostly in the south, mixing business with pleasure as I did in Switzerland in August. Some seemed to appreciate my observations from that trip so here is what I saw in France:
- the moment we crossed the border from Italy, the flics went through the train and systematically checked the papers of anyone who was black or dark brown. They yanked off anyone who didn't satisfy them, though one Indian man clearly managed to and the last thing I saw as the train pulled out of the station was them profusely apologising to him. So much for borderless travel under Schengen anyway. A slightly swarthy but ethnically European friend who lived in Nice 20 years ago told me they used to do that to him whenever he came back from Italy, while his much whiter wife and daughter were left completely alone. Plus ca change ... - the pensions issue that so exercised people in the spring has died down. None of my friends and contacts across the political spectrum mentioned it even once. - Paris seems to have cleaned up its dog crap problem - this time I saw people using baggies, which I didn't really see on my last trip a decade ago though - in the same way, people seem to be resigned to Macron for the next few years - there's no enthusiasm for him, but none for any of the alternatives either. Le Pen inspires less horror than she did on my last trip - most people I talked to across the political spectrum (I don't know any Le Pen supporters and only a couple of real lefties) seemed perversely happy with the weak government they'd got by electing Macron but then denying him a Parliamentary majority. So there's no real wish for change. If the old saying that France is a conservative country tempered by revolutions is true, it's certainly in a conservative phase now, whatever it felt like in the spring. - there was more enthusiasm for Ukraine than I thought there would be, both amongst people I talked to and in terms of the number of Ukrainian flags etc on houses and public buildings, which seemed similar to here - there's still some residual bitterness about AUKUS (probably because they didn't get to do it to us). Unlike in Switzerland, nobody mentioned le Brexit though. - I saw a couple of anti-vax demos in Avignon and Beziers. France has been a hotbed of such sentiment for years. Pathetically small turnouts though. - the high speed rail is still formidable, but often booked up as fares are so low. The remainder of the railway network has obviously been starved of funds as many of the trains I tried to take were delayed or cancelled. - the obvious racial segregation is far more blatant there than here, though obviously not quite as marked as in the southern US or South Africa. You see rather fewer interracial couples than here, and residential areas seem far more split.
Laura K should have asked Sunaks views on leaving the ECHR . Perhaps she could have asked him his thoughts on breaching the GFA if the UK left . She could also have asked him the message leaving the convention sends to the rest of the world especially at this time of war in Ukraine and the resultant human rights abuses by Russia .
Does the UK at this time want to be clumped together with Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not in the ECHR .
And that’s exactly the issue.
The Belfast Agreement is important. But the ECHR component is not - there would need to be negotiation to replace it with a suitable body (or to retain it specifically for this purpose).
What you are saying is that the democratically elected government of the UK should be prevented from pursuing an action of which you disapprove because reasons.
The UK can choose to withdraw from the ECHR . No one can force it to remain but it will need to accept the consequences of its actions. We heard a load of tosh before Brexit from uninformed politicians about the impact on NI . And I’m sure the usual suspects will be wheeled out to talk garbage again and try and dupe the uniformed into voting their rights away .
This is critical. Whatever you think of the ECHR in narrow terms, Britain does not exist in splendid isolation. Leaving international organisations has effects.
I am seasick from the row forward and row back from these clowns.
The media management is inept. I cannot say I have any enthusiasm for labour but the current administration are clearly out of ideas and appear rudderless. I know you are in the US currently but the whole country feels as though nothing works properly and the govt priorities are all over the place.
Somebody suggested dropping Italy from 6N and replacing them with SA. Instead lets have a 7N including Portugal - they deserve it
Maybe an 8 Nations with two groups of four drawn on seedings with the top two from the groups playing off. Effectively a European championships. Might need to do it in the middle of World Cup cycles so that year there is no 6nations.
It would give chances for second tier European nations to get regular competition and something for them to aim for outside of the European second tier competition to boost their rankings to get into the new tournament.
So the two top teams from the current European tier two tournament the year before go through to 8 Nations.
Promotion and relegation with the European FIRA (or whatever it is called these days) top division would do the job.
Somebody suggested dropping Italy from 6N and replacing them with SA. Instead lets have a 7N including Portugal - they deserve it
Maybe an 8 Nations with two groups of four drawn on seedings with the top two from the groups playing off. Effectively a European championships. Might need to do it in the middle of World Cup cycles so that year there is no 6nations.
It would give chances for second tier European nations to get regular competition and something for them to aim for outside of the European second tier competition to boost their rankings to get into the new tournament.
So the two top teams from the current European tier two tournament the year before go through to 8 Nations.
The current six nations format works pretty well. There are three matches every weekend for five weeks at the end of which you have a winner.
What I'd suggest is having promotion/relegation to the next tier down, and rebrand that as the second six nations, or some such. That way Italy/Romania/Georgia can take turns in the six nations proper until one of them is good enough to force one of the other five teams to get relegated if they have a shocker of a tournament.
Maybe have a playoff between the six nations wooden spoon team and the second six nations champions as well.
I am seasick from the row forward and row back from these clowns.
And in all probability, we have another bloody year of this.
I've been in the "failed organisation waiting for the takeover to happen" limbo, and it's horrible.
There comes a point when, grim as the days after the takeover are going to be, they are preferable to the mixture of chaos and stasis that come before.
I have just arrived back from almost three weeks in France, mostly in the south, mixing business with pleasure as I did in Switzerland in August. Some seemed to appreciate my observations from that trip so here is what I saw in France:
- the moment we crossed the border from Italy, the flics went through the train and systematically checked the papers of anyone who was black or dark brown. They yanked off anyone who didn't satisfy them, though one Indian man clearly managed to and the last thing I saw as the train pulled out of the station was them profusely apologising to him. So much for borderless travel under Schengen anyway. A slightly swarthy but ethnically European friend who lived in Nice 20 years ago told me they used to do that to him whenever he came back from Italy, while his much whiter wife and daughter were left completely alone. Plus ca change ... - the pensions issue that so exercised people in the spring has died down. None of my friends and contacts across the political spectrum mentioned it even once. - Paris seems to have cleaned up its dog crap problem - this time I saw people using baggies, which I didn't really see on my last trip a decade ago though - in the same way, people seem to be resigned to Macron for the next few years - there's no enthusiasm for him, but none for any of the alternatives either. Le Pen inspires less horror than she did on my last trip - most people I talked to across the political spectrum (I don't know any Le Pen supporters and only a couple of real lefties) seemed perversely happy with the weak government they'd got by electing Macron but then denying him a Parliamentary majority. So there's no real wish for change. If the old saying that France is a conservative country tempered by revolutions is true, it's certainly in a conservative phase now, whatever it felt like in the spring. - there was more enthusiasm for Ukraine than I thought there would be, both amongst people I talked to and in terms of the number of Ukrainian flags etc on houses and public buildings, which seemed similar to here - there's still some residual bitterness about AUKUS (probably because they didn't get to do it to us). Unlike in Switzerland, nobody mentioned le Brexit though. - I saw a couple of anti-vax demos in Avignon and Beziers. France has been a hotbed of such sentiment for years. Pathetically small turnouts though. - the high speed rail is still formidable, but often booked up as fares are so low. The remainder of the railway network has obviously been starved of funds as many of the trains I tried to take were delayed or cancelled. - the obvious racial segregation is far more blatant there than here, though obviously not quite as marked as in the southern US or South Africa. You see rather fewer interracial couples than here, and residential areas seem far more split.
Thanks for that. Appreciated. I trip there regularly. Dog poo hasn't been an issue for sometime. It used to be awful. I found the trains excellent on my last trip. I might have been lucky. As for most of the time we were in the middle of nowhere I didn't experience any of the rest. Lucky to see another human when cycling off road
Somebody suggested dropping Italy from 6N and replacing them with SA. Instead lets have a 7N including Portugal - they deserve it
Maybe an 8 Nations with two groups of four drawn on seedings with the top two from the groups playing off. Effectively a European championships. Might need to do it in the middle of World Cup cycles so that year there is no 6nations.
It would give chances for second tier European nations to get regular competition and something for them to aim for outside of the European second tier competition to boost their rankings to get into the new tournament.
So the two top teams from the current European tier two tournament the year before go through to 8 Nations.
Promotion and relegation with the European FIRA (or whatever it is called these days) top division would do the job.
I think, although inevitably I’m wrong, that the 6N is almost like a corporate entity that’s owned by the participants so it would require all of them to agree to a change and frankly there is no way Italy will vote for a situation which will likely see them yo-yo every year so you need to find a way to add teams to the exposure of playing against euro tier 1 teams without upsetting the cosy apple cart.
As with Premier Rugby in England it was in their interests to make it very very hard for Championship winners to get promoted as the last place premier team would have a massive funding cut if relegated that would likely be terminal very quickly.
Somebody suggested dropping Italy from 6N and replacing them with SA. Instead lets have a 7N including Portugal - they deserve it
Wouldn't Georgia make a decent 8th? I don't see that Italy are far ahead of them or Portugal.
Australia were woeful. I know Wales played well against them, but frankly they didn't beat much.
Georgia would have the benefit of a geopolitical message from Europe too.
Maybe one day, when HS2 is completed as part of a trans European network, rugby fans from Manchester will be able to enjoy travelling to watch England play them with the ease of just jumping on the midnight train.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
What on earth is her problem?
So deliberate misgendering is cool if it’s someone you don’t like. Right…..
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
What on earth is her problem?
So deliberate misgendering is cool if it’s someone you don’t like. Right…..
The ECtHR is irritating. It’s political, it’s inconsistent and, occasionally, it is irrational. I can well understand the irritation that someone like Sumption might have about the quality of their decision making. Some of it is indeed embarrassing.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
We have lots of limits on the dictatorship of the FPTP majority - the House of Lords, the monarchy, the Supreme Court, a free press, public opinion, centuries of precedent on minority rights and democracy, the opinion of foreign countries, the occasional referendum, etc etc etc. I don't think a bunch of unelected, unaccountable foreign judges and their associated hangers-on really add much to that. Canada, the United States and Australia somehow manage to uphold human rights a lot better than some of the countries that are subject to the ECHR, and not because they have constitutions, which many of the world's most dictatorial countries also have.
I don't think their decisions are demonstrably better overall than Parliament's, and at least when Parliament messes up, we can change it at the next election. We're stuck with those judges, however idiotic. Or, maybe, soon we won't be.
You’re assuming that bad faith actors in the future won’t try and erode those institutions. The Tories have in the past threatened to politicize the SC because it issued judgements the government didn’t like . They’ve also threatened to ignore judicial reviews or limit their scope . The way the Tory party is going we need more protection not less .
You're assuming that bad faith actors in the future won't try and corrupt the courts.
Its easier for voters to change a corrupt Parliament, than a corrupt court that can override Parliament.
The SC should interpret the laws passed by Parliament, if Parliament doesn't like the SC's rulings it can and should be able to change the law, not change the Court. Then the Court should interpret the new law.
If in the future a politicised European Court of Human Rights were to interpret Article 2 ("right to life") as criminalising and outlawing abortion, then should that be allowed to stand even if Parliament wants abortion to be legal?
That’s an interesting point . But it hasn’t done that and unlikely it ever would as that would effectively end the court . You’d only have a few members left like Poland and Malta .
But if it did do that, you'd be prepared to leave the court?
In which case, I'm struggling to see a point of principle here.
Seems like the old story about the actress 'we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price'.
Our political differences are best solved democratically, not outside of democracy.
Yes courts should ensure laws are applied fairly and equitably to all. But Parliament should determine the laws.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
What on earth is her problem?
So deliberate misgendering is cool if it’s someone you don’t like. Right…..
No. His pronouns are he/twat.
I cannot see why he is so worked up about people using their pronouns. I cannot see why anyone would get worked up about it.
Off thread - I was speaking to an 11 year old girl yesterday - another player in my daughter's football team. She's a sweet kid - smiley and eager to please. "How's senior school going?" I asked. "Oh, OK," she answered brightly. "It's very different from primary school though. I've only cried a couple of times. Just about how different it is." [Pause] "There isn't really much to do at break times. People just talk. No one really plays any more."
A more harrowing lament on growing up I have yet to hear.
It's OK for my daughter. She's one of the oldest in the year. She's more adult than most. But I really felt for this girl, and for all the slightly-young-for-their-year kids being yanked unceremoniously out of childhood.
Not sure what to do with this story but I can't stop thinking about it.
Apparently Elon Musk is triggered by people putting pronouns into their twitter bios, so he's having them edited out, the great big pathetic snowflake.
What on earth is her problem?
So deliberate misgendering is cool if it’s someone you don’t like. Right…..
No. His pronouns are he/twat.
I cannot see why he is so worked up about people using their pronouns. I cannot see why anyone would get worked up about it.
The reactionary right aren't big on live and let live. And Musk is also a control freak.
Oh God we’ve got another year of Sunak popping out a new policy every day . And his over the top enthusiasm is nauseating . His latest ruse to dupe the plebs is the town fund. Please make it stop !
Comments
I should blame her for the cancellation of the Lower Thames Crossing?
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally by a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/01/tory-mps-with-8000-majority-likely-lose-seat-election/
And nobodys going change the Thames crossing just because you want it. In any event you said you`d never come back to the UK because of Brexit so stick to sheep farming.
Why would you think I am?
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/wolfgang-schaeuble-koennen-uns-diese-asylpolitik-nicht-mehr-leisten-a-facb5b88-1d44-4800-b6e5-9507cc0b3c2a
(1) It's largest industry (capital goods) was entirely dependent on Chinese demand, and that has collapsed
(2) It's second largest industry (cars) is being massacred by the fact that German carmakers completely missed the battery revolution
Now, sure higher natural gas prices aren't helping, but remember gas is fungible. If Germany is now paying higher prices for gas from Qatar, then so is everybody else, irrespective of where they buy their gas from.
And you're being overly polite, the Kiwis like the Welsh are sheep shaggers ...
But you're right, he's hasn't actually announced a dogshit policy yet - and, in retrospect, expecting him to do anything so community-minded as to show an interest in the public realm was rather unrealistic.
So, Bollard Boy? Pothole Plonker? Or maybe in the next few days he'll come up with some sort of policy that's worthy of his office...
Not my title. My original choice was considerably more provocative.
So I guess we can usefully ignore your “experience” as all it seems to have set you up for is a disposition for pederasty and shitposting.
The Belfast Agreement is important. But the ECHR component is not - there would need to be negotiation to replace it with a suitable body (or to retain it specifically for this purpose).
What you are saying is that the democratically elected government of the UK should be prevented from pursuing an action of which you disapprove because reasons.
LNG gas on ships is fungible.
The price of gas and flow of gas pipelines is most definitely not.
Which is why Russia is struggling to adopt to Europe turning off consumption even though China wants gas, the pipes simply go to the wrong place.
And why Germany is struggling too and having to spend tens of billions of euros adapting it's gas imports to alternatives.
https://www.energate-messenger.com/news/231038/costs-for-lng-terminals-skyrocket#:~:text=Berlin (energate) - The costs,the end of the line.
Now, he's cut lots of the team, and says: ""Oh you mean the 'Election Integrity' Team that was undermining election integrity? Yeah, they're gone,"
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musk-slashes-x-election-integrity-group-claims-they-undermined-elections/
We have infrastructure projects up and down the country that should have been getting built for years now that Sunak won't come out and confirm will or won't be built.
Germany exports to the world and while China is a major client the whole of German industry exports across the world. My brother works in a Mittelstandler selling capital goods, they havent sold a single machine to China. German exports to china were circa 7% of the total.
Demand in Germany is down across the board including internal demand since people hve no money.
As for the cars yes re EVs, but the German industry bet the farm on diesel and cheated in the process. Merkel's mob knew they were doing it and turned a blind eye, They are reaping what they sowed.
Courts and constitutions and charters of fundamental rights are not, per se, absolute guarantors. Nor is democracy. Each of them individually are necessary. Each of them on their own are not sufficient. We need all of them.
I do not believe in the good faith of politicians arguing to leave the ECHR. They are doing it because they want unrestrained power. And those who want - or have - such unrestrained power will undoubtedly abuse it. Only fools or the unbelievably naive think otherwise.
They have always done in every single country where this has obtained. Including in our own. And in living memory - see Northern Ireland from 1921 onwards. The common law, British Parliamentary democracy utterly failed when it came to protecting the minority population there for decades and it continued to fail them even during the Troubles. So lawyer and British citizen though I may be I am well aware of the failings of our legal system and our Parliamentary democracy.
No one authority should have unrestricted power. This government wants just that. And other politicians will go along with this because it makes life very convenient for them. Which is why we should not allow them to grab it.
Its why power should ultimately reside in the voters and the governments they elect and hold to account. And courts should implement those laws, subject to change by elected Parliaments.
Number 10 has good reason to be angsty that the united and confident display it wants to stage may be sabotaged by noises off. The nightmare scenario for Number 10 is that its attempt to project the prime minister as a man with an action plan to stay in government is occluded by naked competition between the wannabes to take over the Tories in opposition.
The hope in Number 10 was that he would ultimately get some credit for fixing the mess that he inherited. This rather depended on voters forgetting that it was a stramash of his own party’s creation, but it was the best plan available to him. It still is, really. Bar Labour committing an unexpectedly catastrophic error, the Conservatives’ most credible chance of recovery is an improvement to the economic climate.
My conclusion about the turmoil we’ve witnessed over recent weeks is that the prime minister has lost faith in what was his core strategy. The man who once projected himself as Steady Sunak is now adopting the persona of Risky Rishi. The novelty is that the attack has been concentrated not on Labour, but on the record of his Conservative predecessors… the dividing lines he has drawn attention to are the ones splitting his own party. Some of the angriest voices about the retreats on net zero belong to green-minded Conservatives. Some of the most furious opposition to tearing up high-speed rail comes from big Tory names who favour bold infrastructure projects, such as Michael Heseltine and George Osborne who condemned it as “an act of huge economic self-harm”.
Mr Sunak’s notions about what he would do with a fifth Tory term is an eclectic stable of hobby-horses. These include slashing inheritance tax, a “crackdown” on parking charges, moving in the direction of a total ban on smoking, replacing A-levels with a baccalaureate and (this we’ve heard before) making maths compulsory to the age of 18. This is not a coherent political philosophy. It is an expression of the prime minister’s pet likes and hates. This is not a refreshment of Conservatism. Nor is it a mission for government. And it most definitely does not amount to long-term decisions for a brighter future.
He seems to have an anger management issue.
I simply believe that Parliament ought to be able to change laws to override courts decisions in the end, if Parliament does so democratically. Which is what our Supreme Court still says itself.
Rather than unelected courts overriding laws that have been passed by Parliament, as happens in the likes of the USA etc.
If the government of the day doesn't change the law and acts illegally of course courts should be able to rule accordingly. But if the government does change the law, then that is democracy.
You’d also need the USA and Ireland to agree to re-negotiate . We saw with Brexit just how well the head in the sand approach worked for NI !
Absolutely courts should have jurisdiction, within the law, but within the law as determined by Parliament, not outwith it. If Parliament changes the law, then the Courts should reflect that, we shouldn't instead be seeking to change the composition of Courts to get our way.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper says “it is not my job to be a commentator of these things” when asked when the speculation surrounding HS2 will end.
The end of Laura K’s trilogy petered out with a somewhat anticlimactic conclusion that the British system worked because it got rid of two inadequate unsuitable PMs in rapid succession (with an unspoken invitation to compare the US), but that is a point….
“No one voted for what you are doing. Are you relaxed about that?”
“Yes, because I’m doing what I think is right.”
The only thing democracy definitely gives the electorate is an option to vote a government out, possibly 5 years later.
That's probably insufficient, check and balance wise.
And yet, it exists. It has existed for a very long time and it is, at times, a useful independent check on what we do. I think it would take a lot of time and a lot of precedent before any UK court would establish that kind of independence and impartiality. The current SC shows little evidence of such independence. Some may say that this is because it does it’s job and does not play politics, focusing on the law. I tend to that view myself. But dictatorship by a FPTP majority, well short of a majority of the votes, must have some limits. We need someone to protect the minorities, to explore the hard cases all too often not even considered when the legislation was passed. The ECtHR does this well enough on the whole.
Easier for the voters to change the composition of Parliament to change the law, than to change a corrupted Court. See: Clarence Thomas.
If Rishi's plan were to flog off the scattered remaining assets of the UK at 30p in the pound, in the vague hope of funding the pension liabilities, how would it look different to what's currently happening?
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/susan-hall-london-mayor-speech-conservative-conference
For God's sake, just get enhancement surgery for it.
https://x.com/StephenCVGraham/status/1708100163548352670?s=20
I don't think their decisions are demonstrably better overall than Parliament's, and at least when Parliament messes up, we can change it at the next election. We're stuck with those judges, however idiotic. Or, maybe, soon we won't be.
And those who would leave the ECHR you suspect (and I agree) of having a hate filled agenda which unchecked will become deeply horrible.
A theme develops, and maybe its time will come:
On ECHR we need a simpler and more basic one.
On the Refugee Convention we need a new and realistic one with global parity (with, BTW the principal aim and objective of improving the quality of government in countries being fled).
And on the EU (too late now but obvious really) neither Leave nor Remain were sane positions in 2016. But Reform and Variable Geometry was and remains essential. We would then rejoin in a heartbeat.
simples.
To name a few: Small boats and Rwanda, HS2, the 2030 ICE ban and the various other recent bonfire of green announcements, the ECHR, replacing A levels with a Bacc, Truss tax cuts. When you force something on to the agenda you tend to turn it from something where’s there’s consensus or apathy, to something that divides opinion.
What has Labour managed to do similarly? In recent times only private school VAT as far as I can see, and that half heartedly. Other smaller opposition parties show it can be done: Farage with Brexit, the SNP with Indy and more recently trans self-ID, the Lib Dems with sewage and energy price support / windfall taxes.
The suggestion in there that we ought to have an external set of standards which our parliament cannot amend always irritates me. You either believe in democracy or you do not, and therefore the right of “the other lot” to do things you hate or you do not*. It is plain to me that many on my side of the argument (retaining the ECHR) don’t really think a chunk of the British population should never get its way. And that does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
*And let’s not dwell on edge cases like the Nazis. Our guard against such horrors lies elsewhere in the constitution, in the crown itself.
Its easier for voters to change a corrupt Parliament, than a corrupt court that can override Parliament.
The SC should interpret the laws passed by Parliament, if Parliament doesn't like the SC's rulings it can and should be able to change the law, not change the Court. Then the Court should interpret the new law.
If in the future a politicised European Court of Human Rights were to interpret Article 2 ("right to life") as criminalising and outlawing abortion, then should that be allowed to stand even if Parliament wants abortion to be legal?
Good. Common sense has prevailed.
https://x.com/kyivindependent/status/1708514223779696757?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
The bully pulpit of government also helps.
It would give chances for second tier European nations to get regular competition and something for them to aim for outside of the European second tier competition to boost their rankings to get into the new tournament.
So the two top teams from the current European tier two tournament the year before go through to 8 Nations.
I may be recalling incorrectly, but I seem to remember Alanbrooke downplaying the future significance of EVs around the time of Brexit.
A glance at Germany's figures from 2019 show the dominance of autos for exports. China figures high in the list - and higher for imports.
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/DEU/Year/2019/Summarytext
Whatever you think of the ECHR in narrow terms, Britain does not exist in splendid isolation.
Leaving international organisations has effects. I am seasick from the row forward and row back from these clowns.
Up there in the 10 most fucking good fun things I’ve ever done
Like riding a motorbike underwater
- the moment we crossed the border from Italy, the flics went through the train and systematically checked the papers of anyone who was black or dark brown. They yanked off anyone who didn't satisfy them, though one Indian man clearly managed to and the last thing I saw as the train pulled out of the station was them profusely apologising to him. So much for borderless travel under Schengen anyway. A slightly swarthy but ethnically European friend who lived in Nice 20 years ago told me they used to do that to him whenever he came back from Italy, while his much whiter wife and daughter were left completely alone. Plus ca change ...
- the pensions issue that so exercised people in the spring has died down. None of my friends and contacts across the political spectrum mentioned it even once.
- Paris seems to have cleaned up its dog crap problem - this time I saw people using baggies, which I didn't really see on my last trip a decade ago though
- in the same way, people seem to be resigned to Macron for the next few years - there's no enthusiasm for him, but none for any of the alternatives either. Le Pen inspires less horror than she did on my last trip
- most people I talked to across the political spectrum (I don't know any Le Pen supporters and only a couple of real lefties) seemed perversely happy with the weak government they'd got by electing Macron but then denying him a Parliamentary majority. So there's no real wish for change. If the old saying that France is a conservative country tempered by revolutions is true, it's certainly in a conservative phase now, whatever it felt like in the spring.
- there was more enthusiasm for Ukraine than I thought there would be, both amongst people I talked to and in terms of the number of Ukrainian flags etc on houses and public buildings, which seemed similar to here
- there's still some residual bitterness about AUKUS (probably because they didn't get to do it to us). Unlike in Switzerland, nobody mentioned le Brexit though.
- I saw a couple of anti-vax demos in Avignon and Beziers. France has been a hotbed of such sentiment for years. Pathetically small turnouts though.
- the high speed rail is still formidable, but often booked up as fares are so low. The remainder of the railway network has obviously been starved of funds as many of the trains I tried to take were delayed or cancelled.
- the obvious racial segregation is far more blatant there than here, though obviously not quite as marked as in the southern US or South Africa. You see rather fewer interracial couples than here, and residential areas seem far more split.
Australia were woeful. I know Wales played well against them, but frankly they didn't beat much.
What I'd suggest is having promotion/relegation to the next tier down, and rebrand that as the second six nations, or some such. That way Italy/Romania/Georgia can take turns in the six nations proper until one of them is good enough to force one of the other five teams to get relegated if they have a shocker of a tournament.
Maybe have a playoff between the six nations wooden spoon team and the second six nations champions as well.
I've been in the "failed organisation waiting for the takeover to happen" limbo, and it's horrible.
There comes a point when, grim as the days after the takeover are going to be, they are preferable to the mixture of chaos and stasis that come before.
As with Premier Rugby in England it was in their interests to make it very very hard for Championship winners to get promoted as the last place premier team would have a massive funding cut if relegated that would likely be terminal very quickly.
His pronouns are he/twat.
In which case, I'm struggling to see a point of principle here.
Seems like the old story about the actress 'we know what you are, now we're just haggling over the price'.
Our political differences are best solved democratically, not outside of democracy.
Yes courts should ensure laws are applied fairly and equitably to all. But Parliament should determine the laws.
A more harrowing lament on growing up I have yet to hear.
It's OK for my daughter. She's one of the oldest in the year. She's more adult than most. But I really felt for this girl, and for all the slightly-young-for-their-year kids being yanked unceremoniously out of childhood.
Not sure what to do with this story but I can't stop thinking about it.
And Musk is also a control freak.