ECHR withdrawal in 2022? – politicalbetting.com

JohnO said:

My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible


“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”

What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids

I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.

It's pretty horrendous.

But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)

“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”

How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?

I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff

I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”

And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?

Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.

The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now

The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely

Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.

It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.

The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.

The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.

The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.

That's the brutal war of attrition.

A very insightful post.

Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?

If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.

England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.

What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built

And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible


“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”

What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids

I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.

It's pretty horrendous.

But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)

“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”

How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?

I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff

I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”

And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?

Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.

The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now

The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely

Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.

It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.

The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.

The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.

The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.

That's the brutal war of attrition.

A very insightful post.

Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?

If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.

England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.

The Mexican-American war, perhaps?

Leon said:

JohnO said:

My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!

Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much

Leon said:

JohnO said:

My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!

Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible


“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”

What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids

I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.

It's pretty horrendous.

But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)

“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”

How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?

I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff

I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”

And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?

Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.

The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now

The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely

Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.

It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.

The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.

The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.

The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.

That's the brutal war of attrition.

A very insightful post.

Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?

If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.

England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.

What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built

And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible


“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”

What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids

I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.

It's pretty horrendous.

But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)

“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”

How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?

I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff

I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”

And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?

Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.

The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now

The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely

Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.

It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.

The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.

The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.

The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.

That's the brutal war of attrition.

A very insightful post.

Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?

If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.

England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.

The Mexican-American war, perhaps?

Islam invaded and conquered all the Middle East, North Africa, Asia Minor, Iberia, Persia etc in a couple of centuries

It had no great technological superiority it just had religious zeal and brio

With the exception of Iberia, none of these places has reverted to its prior state

There are zillions of similar cases

MikeL said:

IPSOS:

Macron 224
Left 170 (inc Misc)
Le Pen 89
Republicans 82 (inc Misc)

So Macron + Republicans can do it.

JohnO said:

Le Pen far exceeding expectations.

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Leon said:

JohnO said:

My French is poor but I think Le Soir is predicting Ensemble to win only between 208-48, the Left 163-203, Le Pen 67-90 and the Republicans 30-50. Form a government from that!!

Pretty bad for Macron. He won’t be able to do much

Is that France saying they might not want Le Pen, but nor do they want Macron Blairite reform programme for public sector, pensions, worker rights?

Don't want Melenchon either.
Don't want much it appears.

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

rcs1000 said:

MattW said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

As predicted….


“No one in the parliamentary Labour party is advocating a policy of rejoining the EU. But there are those who would like to see closer involvement with the single market under a Labour government, and a return to EU free-movement rules, particularly as evidence grows that Brexit is harming trade, and contributing to rising prices”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/19/labour-cannot-make-peoples-lives-better-until-it-dares-to-start-talking-about-brexit

Which from the beginning was always the sensible and optimal answer - as a fair few leavers conceded during the referendum campaign, although amnesia has set in since.

The only question is whether the damage that our current flawed and foolish Brexit is doing will push the Tories towards a more pragmatic resolution - pace Ellwood - or whether it will take a change of government to accept the inevitable.

I wouldn’t necessarily differ

But persuading the British people to accept free movement once again is a very tall order. How do you do that? Can’t see it

Moreover, this gives the lie to the idea that it’s the Tories who are “always banging on about Brexit”

There are many millions of Remainers who also want to talk about it, they are particularly prevalent on the left, and they will - as I predicted on here weeks ago - pressure Starmer towards the Single Market. As we now see

I think the answer is that you don't talk about FoM now; leave that until the generation who grew up with FoM (and miss it a bit) are the ones in power. The nostaligia factor that led to the 2016 decision works both ways. And the 2024 settlement won't stick any more than 2020, 1992, 1973 or the foundation of EFTA in 1960.

In the meantime, there are a lot of ways of lubricating the UK-EU border that pragmatists would surely be fine with. You have to be pretty hardcore to want different veterniary / agricultural / chemical standards. I'm sure there are ways that UK businesses could benefit from the freedoms, but I'm also confident that they aren't worth the ballsache of the resulting border controls.

And then... one thing Johnson was right about was that our neighbouring continent does exert a hefty gravitational pull on the UK. Where I disagree with him is his belief that a massive effort could pull us decisively free from that, and mentally put is in the middle of the Atlantic, or the Panama canal, or somewhere between Singapore and Australia. Gravity doesn't work like that- ask the comets in the Oort cloud.

Permanent Brexit only really worked if others followed us out of the door. And, for various reasons, countries like Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands decided not to.

I can envisage us rejoining some form of the single market, perhaps. But I still struggle to see how you get over the FoM thing

I can’t see us ever rejoining the political Union

We'll see. It will take 10 years to know.

That so many prominent remainer commentators online are willing simply to lie / distort suggests that they are not confident.

One indicative tipping point will be later this year when we have a larger network of trade agreements than we did in the EU, which will be achieved without CBTPP, though it will take further time for new patterns to set in. When that is added in, and good relations with the many blocks / countries with whom Brussels have managed to create essentially frozen trade negotiations, who knows?

"later this year when we have a larger network of trade agreements than we did in the EU"

The EU is also adding FTAs, though. Do you really think we'll have more FTAs than the EU by the end of this year?

Because they're also adding FTAs at a reasonable pace.

If we join the TPP, then we'll leapfrog them, obviously, but otherwise it looks like much of a muchness, with them leading in some negotiations, and us in others.

We'll see.

I haven't gone to the extent of combing through the entire lists, and surveying all the EU docs as to why so many have been in the doldrums for so long. That may be an exercise worth a Saturday morning when the weather gets cold and foggy.

I suspect that the rate of UK adding them has perhaps been a kick in the butt.

I'm sure that's right: India-EU negotiations have restarted after a long gap, and I'm sure our negotiations have encouraged them to move more quickly.

That said, the EU will likely conclude both Australia and Indonesian FTAs before the UK.

While we'll be probably be first with NZ and India.

dixiedean said:

Macron 224. Dire.

williamglenn said:

With those results any potential government will be vulnerable to a vote of no confidence at any moment.

dixiedean said:

Will be interesting to see if Macron attempts to woo the rump of the PS away from NUPES and into the government.

MattW said:

fitalass said:

kle4 said:

fitalass said:

It would appear that the SNP interpretation of zero tolerance can change from day to day depending on the circumstances... Interesting to note that this email was also quickly leaked to the media, all is not well in the Westminter SNP group.

Twitter
Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h
🔺EXCL: SNP MPs have been threatened with criminal action by their chief whip over a leaked recording of a meeting at which senior figures backed Patrick Grady over his sexual misconduct scandal.
https://twitter.com/KieranPAndrews/status/1538517865514643456

Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h
Replying to
@KieranPAndrews
In a late night letter following @johnestevens
scoop, Owen Thompson said recording an leaking a group meeting was “beyond the pale”, adding: “This behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

Kieran Andrews@KieranPAndrews·3h
Thompson said there were “serious questions to be answered on the legality of sharing a recording without consent under terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000” and has raised the leak with Westminster’s security team

Kieran Andrews
@KieranPAndrews·3h
The SNP staffer, targeted by Grady when he was 19, said: "It is disappointing to see that the SNP would rather take strong action against the leaker than the perpetrator." Grady has been given a two-day suspension from the party.

Pretty standard behaviour when something is leaked, frankly. Examples of focusing on the method of information getting out than what it was are rife no doubt.

The optics of this leaked email are as bad as the leaked audio from that Westminster SNP group meeting..

Twitter
Tom Gordon@HTScotPol·1h
Patrick Grady sex row: SNP chief whip tells MPs there will be no tolerance for leakers
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1538555114461478912

What's this criminal action the Chief Whip is threatening?

Or was that an unfortunately worded tweet?

darkage said:

I would expect that quitting the ECHR and bringing human rights 'in house' would lead to an immediate repudiation of human rights for unpopular groups; ie violent criminals, sex offenders and certain categories of asylum seeker. The current discourse is quite revealing, I would guess that only 'lefty lawyers' would step forward to defend these groups, the overwhelming likelihood is that the removal of their human rights would just be steamrollered through as a political opportunity, particularly if the current government remain in charge.

Over time, rights would evolve to applying to things that are politically popular because they can essentially be continuously altered by governments elected by less than half of the part of the voting age population that bothered to vote. I think Sumption has thought about this a lot and concluded that it is the right way forward if the overriding goal is to preserve and sustain democracy. I respect this view and his experience as a judge, but I think that what he is suggesting would take us in a very problematic direction.

In summary, by all means people can argue to leave the ECHR and there are forceful arguments to do so, but you have to be honest about what this means for existing human rights given our lack of a written constitution and how legislation is made in the UK. It seems a bit problematic and naive to just go around claiming everything will be as it is now and that there would be no change. You have to be honest and admit that it would probably be a big change.

dixiedean said:

If you like electoral map porn.

https://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-elections/

Select La Carte tab at the top.

Andy_JS said:

JohnO said:

Le Pen far exceeding expectations.

What was she expected to get?

Leon said:

JohnO said:

Andy_JS said:

JohnO said:

Le Pen far exceeding expectations.

What was she expected to get?

I think no more than 30 after the first round.

She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling

Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….

nico679 said:

Many who voted Macron to stop Le Pen in the Presidential race feel like they did their bit . That seems fair enough and they were free to vote for their preferred choices now .

Leon said:

JohnO said:

Andy_JS said:

JohnO said:

Le Pen far exceeding expectations.

What was she expected to get?

I think no more than 30 after the first round.

She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling

Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….

Foxy said:

Leon said:

JohnO said:

Andy_JS said:

JohnO said:

Le Pen far exceeding expectations.

What was she expected to get?

I think no more than 30 after the first round.

She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling

Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….

90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.

Foxy said:

nico679 said:

Many who voted Macron to stop Le Pen in the Presidential race feel like they did their bit . That seems fair enough and they were free to vote for their preferred choices now .

Though as he has the largest party by a clear plurality, he must be the preferred party of many French.

Looking at the projections, Macron could align with LR, or perhaps reach some accommodation with the unified left. Indeed the latter, with a more cautious approach to reform in the midst of stagflation, may well be the best option for France. Not least because Le Pen's party isn't too keen on radical reform either.

Andy_JS said:

"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’
Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/19/wheelchair-user-dragged-himself-up-stairs-after-rail-staff-refused-to-help

Cyclefree said:

It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.

In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.

Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.

The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.

As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.

The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.

As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.

In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.

Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.

The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.

As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.

The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.

As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.

All they have to do is move the actual courtroom from Strasbourg to, say, Swindon, or Newent, and the problem is solved

Malmesbury said:

Andy_JS said:

"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’
Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/19/wheelchair-user-dragged-himself-up-stairs-after-rail-staff-refused-to-help

There is a phenomenon of staff being fired for lifting/carrying people because they were not "officially trained to do so".

@PB Legal - why is this?

Leon said:

EPG said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

JohnO said:

Andy_JS said:

JohnO said:

Le Pen far exceeding expectations.

What was she expected to get?

I think no more than 30 after the first round.

She’s calling it a “tsunami” which is stretching it a fair bit, but she is excelling

Importantly, she is breaking out of her homelands on the Med coast and the rustbelt north and she is spreading west, literally down the Loire…. A riverine line of seats….

90ish from 577? Not exactly a tidal wave of support for someone who polled 42% nationally a couple of months back.

In 2017 she turned 34% in the presidential into a mere 8 seats at the legislative elections.

So if it is 90ish that looks like a significant breakthrough to me.

Tsunami would seem an apter description that seeing it as nothing.

Perviously, the electoral system combined with the vote efficiency of the National Front limited their parliamentary seats severely. This seems to be be breaking down - at least for the present election.

The context is that at this election, there was no general recommendation by the non-RN parties to vote for each other. And what seems to have happened is historically weak cross-transfers between Nupes and Ensemble+Republicans. There is a bunch of districts won by RN where they finished second in round one; needless to say, at any previous election, that should almost never have happened. There is another bunch where they finished first in the mid-30s in round one, which historically would lead to a big backlash but this time the willingness to vote for the other non-RN bloc wasn't there. But further to that, RN also won a bunch of extra votes in the second round. In some cases Republicans and a few in Nupes and Ensemble were happy to vote for RN over the "republican front" candidate.

Le Pen has detoxed her brand. Also, Stade de France

Cyclefree said:

It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.

In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.

Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.

The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.

As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.

The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.

As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_JS said:

"Wheelchair user dragged himself up stairs ‘after rail staff refused to help’
Chris Nicholson was left stranded on platform at Milton Keynes station in 31C heat"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/19/wheelchair-user-dragged-himself-up-stairs-after-rail-staff-refused-to-help

There is a phenomenon of staff being fired for lifting/carrying people because they were not "officially trained to do so".

@PB Legal - why is this?

Are they covered by insurance if anything goes wrong?

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Those refugee stats from Ukraine are numbingly horrible


“By 24 March, more than half of all children in Ukraine had left their homes, of whom a quarter had left the country”

What a bleak bleak statistic. My god. All those kids

I know a Ukrainian lady, early 20s, did so SMM work for us as a contractor. Her and her parents fled, and have been put up in Berlin by the German government, while her two brothers have stayed to fight.

It's pretty horrendous.

But - assuming Ukraine wins the war - they'll be going back. There's a steely determination not to let their country be taken away. (And there's a realisation that if you're not a part of the fight, you're probably better off not being there.)

“Assuming Ukraine wins the war”

How the heck does that happen? You really think Ukraine can defeat…. Russia?

I got totally wasted with a youngish Russian couple last night. Emigres from the war hiding out in Armenia. We drank vodka late into the night and they revealed some fascinating stuff

I’ll go into details some other time but what struck me was the guy, 38, smart, IT dude, who told me he hated the war but “in the end I want Russia to win it. Russia is my country”

And this is a highly intelligent westernised critic of the war?

Putin has successfully framed the war as Russia V the West. Not Ukraine. Russia will not and cannot lose in that situation.

The best we can hope for is both sides get bogged down and eventually sue for peace with the territorial gains for Russia largely where they are now

The worst (and much less likely thankfully) is that Ukraine collapses completely

Either way I cannot see Ukraine “winning” and Russia “losing”, except perhaps over many many years if and when Ukraine resists like Afghanistan.

It's very hard for aggressors to win wars, because victory means so much more for those defending.

The US couldn't win Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia couldn't win Afghanistan.

The question is can the Ukrainian determination (and ability) to fight last long enough for the Russians to run out of weapons or men or simply will.

The Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part, because of Afghanistan. At some point continuing the war becomes too expensive for Russia. Ukrainians will die to defend their country. Russians will not die to satisfy Putin's ego. Or at least, they will not do so indefinitely.

That's the brutal war of attrition.

A very insightful post.

Where are the examples of aggressive invasions that succeeded in the long-term?

If we exclude colonisation of less developed countries by those with clear technological superiority, successful invasions are very rare indeed.

England was on the receiving end of one in 1066; beyond that, not many spring to mind.

What?? There are lots of successful invasions. History is full of them. Lands are conquered, empires are built

And yes, usually the militarily superior side wins. That’s how it works

Survivorship bias.

You're remembering all the successful invasions.

algarkirk said:

Cyclefree said:

It is curious that my apparently silly questions are unable to be answered. In fact they are the fundamental questions arising from the inherent tension between a sovereign government and law. In the past governments were sovereign and free to do whatever they wanted on their own territory to their own citizens, no matter how awful. Then WW2 and the world took a different tack and sought to apply some basic principles which all governments, in theory, signed up to. The ECHR principles and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are very similar in substance.

In practice lots of governments have ignored these principles. But Britain has tried not to.

Now I am very sympathetic to the idea that the ECHR should be domesticated and decided on by British courts. That is precisely what the Human Rights Act was designed to do. The intention was that since British judges would be deciding cases and were well able to interpret Convention rights, there would be little need to go to the Court in Strasbourg. As a factual point, the Court in Strasbourg does not automatically hear all cases, so in practice the British courts are the courts of last resort.

The Human Rights Act was opposed by the Tory party which has ever since sought to amend it, weaken it or get rid of it altogether. So I am afraid I view with a bucketload of salt the claims by Tory supporters and sympathisers on here that they really want the Convention rights domesticated. They have been.

As for the right to vote for prisoners and the right to liberty, the Convention makes it clear that so long as there is a right to trial a person's liberty can be curtailed. Many democracies in the West allow prisoners to vote: France, Norway, Canada, for instance.

The decision on votes for prisoners was misreported in the press here. It did not require the British government to give votes to prisoners. What it said was that a blanket ban was not acceptable. The government had to consider in what circumstances it was appropriate to deny prisoners the right to vote and had to balance competing rights. It had not done so. It was asked to do so.

As for the claim that I am being hyperbolic, well, what can I say. A court issues an injunction to preserve the status quo for a whole three weeks pending a full hearing in the British courts and immediately the British government and its supporters demand departure from a Convention which Britain largely wrote and has been party to for 71 years. It's that reaction which has been hyperbolic.

The bit I have italicised in Cyclefree's comment is to many people's minds, including my very liberal one, a good example of why we should sit very loose to the ECHR as interpreted by its court. It is absolutely a state's right to decide that not being allowed to vote is one of the punishments attaching to a prison sentence.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

BTW nice to see you on here again. If you have time I had some questions for you in relation to a comment you made on the migration thread the other day and I would be genuinely interested in your answers, if and when you have the time.

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part

Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part

Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part

Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive

dixiedean said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part

Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive

The electoral map seems to be strangely random. When you compare it to the UK one.
Like done by Pollock rather than Mondrian.

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

EPG said:

It tells you all you need know about Mélenchon that he responded to his second place, somewhat ahead of Le Pen's huge bloc, with "we have succeeded" because Ensemble lost a majority. (Note, he had also been telling people a few days ago that he was still running for Prime Minister.)

I’m just reading about him now. Uncannily similar to Corbyn, right down to the alleged anti-Semitism

He’s horrible

French politics is being assailed by the far-right and the far-left at the same time.

It is in a terrible place.

i find it quite bewildering as France seems, at least at first glance, such a fortunate country, for the most part

Eg I look at the map of France and I see some of my favourite places on earth, like Pyrenees Orientales (which includes the idyllic seaside town of Collioure, and lots of other lovely spots) and then I notice that it voted for Le Pen?! WTF? Life is obviously not as sweet as it appear, and something is happening that my superficial traveling brain does not perceive

I don't understand it, but, France has always had wildly strange and subversive politics, and plenty of revolutions, for centuries now.

Trouble is that when Paris sneezes Europe catches a cold.

RobD said:

gettingbetter said:

Regarding this ECHR thing. There's a couple of our chaps whom Putin's stooges want to execute. We don't have much hope to save them except to appeal to international law. And by good luck Russia is still subject to the ECHR until September. So it doesn't seem the best time to publicly disrespect their them (even if we think they are wassocks).

Russia have already been expelled from the Council, are they still part of the ECHR?