Categories
Options
On the proposal for the UK to the ECHR – politicalbetting.com
On the proposal for the UK to the ECHR – politicalbetting.com
Jonathan Sumption, former Law Lord, eminent historian of the 100 Years’ War, once described by Alastair Campbell as the “cleverest man in Britain” with a “brain the size of a planet” has had a long and distinguished legal career, having previously been a fellow of Magdalen College, specialising in medieval history. Like many with high intelligence he can, however, be naive about others’ baser motives.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
BREAKING -- Rep. @mattgaetz tells me he WILL offer a motion to vacate the Speakership THIS WEEK, trying to REMOVE @SpeakerMcCarthy from the top job. More coming up on @CNNSotu
Of course constitutions and conventions are not absolute guarantors of human rights either, eg the Weimar constitution did not stop Hitler
Of all professions, lawyers are perhaps the most shameless in cloaking their self-interest in arguments for the public good, though of course everybody does it to some extent.
I rather struggle with the idea of rights, so the argument doesn't quite work, but if there are no rights then governments have less power (oddly), and we all finish up in a better place.
The British government says it’s clamping down on the people smugglers.
Our undercover report finds them stronger than ever.
We find
-smuggler says Brexit has made his job easier
-asylum seekers have never heard of Rwanda plan
-smuggler traffics kids as young as 1
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1708479538810732927?s=20
Farage comes out against British Troops in Ukraine
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1708449909144232123?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
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.
If Russia doesn't want conflict, they have an easy solution: withdraw from all occupied territory, including Crimea, and end the war. Conflict is over then.
Catching up, I did enjoy Sunak's interview with Laura K this morning.
Her questioning seems to me to have improved, and he got crosser and crosser, like Gollum in his joke competition with Bilbo Baggins.
In Farage's case, I see little reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. For him, the EU is the big enemy, and as Putin is against the EU, they have a common cause.
""I'm not pro-Putin, I'm pro the sensitivities of Russia"
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/phone-farage/farage-i-respect-russia-but-we-need-their-spies-of/
All it takes for evil to succeed is good to do nothing, we should be doing everything we can to defeat Putin's evil.
Give me any non-Putinist and non-pro-Russian reasons why we should not do this?
Well done 👍👍
And forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you already take the pro-Russian position that Russia shouldn't be made to leave all of Ukraine's occupied territory?
Survey shows nearly 90% of 2019 Conservative voters say green industry is vital to UK’s economic growth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/01/tory-swing-voters-switch-to-labour-after-sunaks-green-retreat-poll-finds
Opinium. Time to restart the war against motorists!
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.
Already a haven for creatives seeking a better quality of life outside the big cities, the town's status as a place where people can opt out of monogamy free of judgement is an open secret.
https://news.sky.com/story/seaside-towns-have-always-had-a-reputation-how-margate-became-the-polyamory-capital-of-england-12972188
Gazette readers won't know about this.
Russia going back to its own borders, leaving Ukraine to its own devices, is an option in-between.
Nobody is suggesting nuking Moscow, but every square inch of Ukraine must be liberated in full.
There is no better alternative than a vigilant democratic nation seeking to protect its own liberties.
Democracy is the worst option available to us - apart from all other options that have ever been tried by man.
UK carbon market collapse lets Brussels benefit from revenues that would previously have gone to Treasury
https://www.ft.com/content/53e91aab-3290-4eb8-944d-19b9ee915baa
The US with its written constitution and "checks and balances"? No, it just led to politicians taking over SCOTUS.
The ECHR? No, it just led to Putin disregarding it while being a full member.
Democracy works. Vote for liberal policies.
Sending British troops to a war zone (and all of Ukraine is a war zone) should only be done after careful debate in Parliament, and with clear rules of engagement and objectives.
If our troops can aid Ukraine, then would you support them being sent with clear rules and objectives following a debate in Parliament? I can agree with you then if that's what you're saying.
We should support Ukraine, as we are, but this is something that should be agreed in Parliament first and we should examine the many reasons why we should not do this.
All at next to no cost in admin, for the nation as a whole.
How? Give illegal immigrants a chance at a huge wedge of cash and legal employment…
I've no qualms with keeping the UK status quo, or it evolving democratically as it has done for hundreds of years. The ECHR is not a critical component of that, democracy is.
As we are seeing in America, constitutional protections are a fig leaf, when even a powerful minority stop believing in the nominal object of the constitution.
(By the way, about 30 percent of abortions in the US are performed on black mothers. For some reason our news organizations don't like reporting that.)
McConnell also built a majority that is broadly in support of our civil rights laws, and so less willing to tolerate the preferences given in hiring and admissions that "affirmative action" has brought to so many institutions. That too will strengthen our democracy.
And, in the not-too-long-run be better for the women and minorities that affirmative action has claimed to help.
(By the way, polls show that voters here prefer civil rights to preferences: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/08/more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-colleges-considering-race-ethnicity-in-admissions-decisions/ And so have most initiatives, including in states that lean left, for example, California and Washington.)
Democracy is not without flaws, but its better than every other system mankind has ever tried.
And my family was providing free legal services to the NAACP in the days when the safety of the lawyers travelling South was guaranteed by the Jewish Mob in New York asking their business partners in the Dixie Mafia to make an accommodation.
Does the UK at this time want to be clumped together with Russia and Belarus as the only European countries not in the ECHR .
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?
Or limiting campaign finance spending.
Of holding corrupt politicians to account.
To take a few examples.
The idea that the Supreme Court has been 'reined in' is somewhat eccentric.
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.
The US is showing that "checks and balances" don't work.
If you decide your views are too important to be put to the voters then they can do the same thing. Then it becomes an arms race to cement your own beliefs.
Then even if you get a majority to vote for campaign finance limitations in Congress, if they control the court they can strike down your laws.
People have a naïve view that courts are only ever good and democracies are only ever bad. History has shown the opposite, courts are good for so long as they're free and follow the law, once courts start making the law, then it becomes an arms race to control the courts and you've ended democratic oversight which is our number one bulwark against dictatorships.
Personally I agree with Gardenwalker, the ECHR should not be a priority.
But if it ever comes to a choice: democracy or the ECHR - I would choose democracy every single time.
Even if that means people I dislike get to write laws I despise. Democracy is the worst system we've ever come up with, apart from all others.
As for what happens with the EU or Northern Ireland or the GFA if we democratically make a choice - same as if Ireland democratically makes a choice, we evolve. I'm a big believer in evolution.
In the long term, it should be possible to get NI out too.
Or we could choose otherwise. That's democracy.
But even on those terms, it's nonsense.
Long may that continue.
That is a healthy part of democracy. The rule of law should apply, but laws should be able to be changed democratically. Nothing should be above democracy, or everything is.
JLP polled some lines from Braverman's speech.
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.
As others have pointed out, Rishi and his voters are choosing affirming political feelz over national prosperity.
He, She, They: The Pronoun Debate Will Likely Land at the Supreme Court
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/01/pronouns-schools-supreme-court-00118832
And why other Westminster style democracies like Canada, Australia and NZ can cope just fine without 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?
It’s not obvious to me that NZ’s current system is faring so well.
But you can still have concerns about whether it is the best course of action.
From my perspective Shapps shouldn’t have been talking about tactical deployments like this
That's healthier than all other alternatives. 👍
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1708044316847849742?t=1EEovVSYLJ3Z-o-3RitHgQ&s=19
Have no idea if it's true but suspect not disclosing the budget might have been helpful politically also!
I also like Richey Rish, which I think works better than Rishi Rich.
The U.K. one has carefully, and repeatedly, refused to overrule Parliament. To the disappointment of those who want to move power to lawfare.