Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Was Weimar Germany Hitler-lite? I thought the conditions that allowed the rise of Hitler were somewhat different.
Your tacit admonishment of my post is technically correct, but in reality you are dancing on the head of a pin.
R4 today programme needs some new US commentators, Webb (self-proclaimed US expert), Sarah Smith and their US expert (a Trump/Musk fanboy) all very surprised that Trump vs Musk had descended rapidly into a vicious personally abusive spat.
UK political coverage of the US is generally poor. It's bad enough that the American media routinely sanewashes Trump, but it's even more absurd that we do so. They are also often simply wrong, just this morning one journalist was talking about Musk's brilliance and achievements like founding PayPal and Tesla, neither of which he founded.
Tesla is arguably fair enough as a very rough approximation of history. PayPal less so.
Amazing tennis fact: only two men born in the 1990s have won Grand Slam titles so far because of the dominance of players like Federer, Djokovic, Nadal.
It'll probably stay that way given the strength of Sinner, alcaraz and emergence of Jack Draper
I'm not convinced. Winning slams is tough and players get injured, or have a bad game. The era of Nadal, Federer, Jokovic was truly exceptional in that there were three all time greats (as shown by how many slams each won despite the presence of the other two. And notably that each Federer (grass) and Nadal (clay) were kings on those surfaces too. Sinner is a very good player and deservedly the best in the world. I am unconvinced that he is as good as the big three were.
They don't have to be, 90s born players yet to win a slam in the top 20 are Zverev, Fritz, Paul, De Minuar, Tiafoe, Rublev, Ruud, Cerundolo, Dimitrov, Humbert. That group won't do well vs Draper, Musetti, Rune, Shelton, Fils, Mensik, Fonseca let alone Sinner and Alcaraz.
R4 today programme needs some new US commentators, Webb (self-proclaimed US expert), Sarah Smith and their US expert (a Trump/Musk fanboy) all very surprised that Trump vs Musk had descended rapidly into a vicious personally abusive spat.
UK political coverage of the US is generally poor. It's bad enough that the American media routinely sanewashes Trump, but it's even more absurd that we do so. They are also often simply wrong, just this morning one journalist was talking about Musk's brilliance and achievements like founding PayPal and Tesla, neither of which he founded.
Tesla is arguably fair enough as a very rough approximation of history. PayPal less so.
What makes that especially dumb, from the journalists, is that Musk never claimed to be the founder of PayPal.
Trump has taken the atmosphere of alienation, magnified it with his own apocalypticism, and, assaulting institutions across society, has created a revolutionary government. More this term than last, he is shifting the conditions in which we live.
Many of my Democratic friends have not fully internalized the magnitude of this historical shift.
Something I've noticed: a lot of the accepted lyrics of songs on the internet aren't right. They get repeated by everyone without anyone checking them.
Wildly wrong or just the occasional small error such as a missing "yeah" or "ooo"?
Usually not completely wrong but more than just a word or two. An exception seems to be the lyrics for Pearly Dewdrops' Drops by the Cocteau Twins which are totally wrong in some popular versions online.
That's odd. Wonder what went on with that one.
Cue a little joke question anyway.
What would Nigel Farage sing if he saw that only people from places like Canada and Australia were coming to live here?
Something I've noticed: a lot of the accepted lyrics of songs on the internet aren't right. They get repeated by everyone without anyone checking them.
Wildly wrong or just the occasional small error such as a missing "yeah" or "ooo"?
Usually not completely wrong but more than just a word or two. An exception seems to be the lyrics for Pearly Dewdrops' Drops by the Cocteau Twins which are totally wrong in some popular versions online.
God I love the Cocteau Twins. Probably the best music ever written by people on heroin
But aren’t the lyrics MEANT to be unintelligible?
Oh I hate agreeing with you, but The Cocteau Twins were something extraordinary. Pearly Dewdrops drops and Lorelei are modern mouth music and convey something beyond words. Grangemouth´s finest.
As for their version of Song of the Siren... that is eerie and stunningly beautiful.
Something I've noticed: a lot of the accepted lyrics of songs on the internet aren't right. They get repeated by everyone without anyone checking them.
Wildly wrong or just the occasional small error such as a missing "yeah" or "ooo"?
Usually not completely wrong but more than just a word or two. An exception seems to be the lyrics for Pearly Dewdrops' Drops by the Cocteau Twins which are totally wrong in some popular versions online.
God I love the Cocteau Twins. Probably the best music ever written by people on heroin
But aren’t the lyrics MEANT to be unintelligible?
Oh I hate agreeing with you, but The Cocteau Twins were something extraordinary. Pearly Dewdrops drops and Lorelei are modern mouth music and convey something beyond words. Grangemouth´s finest.
As for their version of Song of the Siren... that is eerie and stunningly beautiful.
Yes. Beautiful music
A friend of mine used to go to NA meetings with the Twins. I think I can say that - they never exactly hid their addictions cf: “Calfskin Smack”
Did all the other councillors take 2 steps back when the positions were offered because this doesn’t make sense
Well Labour and the SNP (among others) think 16 year olds deserve the vote. It surely depends on the person. Now if you don't think any 19 year old or 22 year old should be a councillor, thats a different question, and tbh, one I think is worth asking.
A progressive idea is that sentences for crimes committed by under 25s should be less, since their brains aren't fully developed. and they aren't fully responsible.
I've seen that advocated by the same people pushing for a reduction in voting age.
The maturity of under 25s is already considered when sentencing them
There's no reason they can't be councillors. Putting them in charge of £600m budgets is a very different matter.
Alexander had commanded armies successfully, by the age of 22. Ismail I had conquered Iran.
Pretty much everyone in Greater Los Angles in the novel Logan's run was dead by 22. Just saying.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
Did all the other councillors take 2 steps back when the positions were offered because this doesn’t make sense
Well Labour and the SNP (among others) think 16 year olds deserve the vote. It surely depends on the person. Now if you don't think any 19 year old or 22 year old should be a councillor, thats a different question, and tbh, one I think is worth asking.
A progressive idea is that sentences for crimes committed by under 25s should be less, since their brains aren't fully developed. and they aren't fully responsible.
I've seen that advocated by the same people pushing for a reduction in voting age.
The maturity of under 25s is already considered when sentencing them
There's no reason they can't be councillors. Putting them in charge of £600m budgets is a very different matter.
Alexander had commanded armies successfully, by the age of 22. Ismail I had conquered Iran.
Pretty much everyone in Greater Los Angles in the novel Logan's run was dead by 22. Just saying.
In the words, of philosopher and wit Sid Waddell "When Alexander of Macedon was 33, he cried salt tears because there were no more worlds to conquer. [Eric] Bristow is only 27"
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Too indignant. Your point is anticipated by Bart, indeed that's the whole point of his 3rd para.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Too indignant. Your point is anticipated by Bart, indeed that's the whole point of his 3rd para.
Yes he has but it butters no parsnips. His post doesn't detract from the main feature that in order to join the club one has to be a European nation. So as far as I am aware with the UK, the decliners will be confined to Russia, Belarus and the People's Republic of Farage.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Too indignant. Your point is anticipated by Bart, indeed that's the whole point of his 3rd para.
Yes he has but it butters no parsnips. His post doesn't detract from the main feature that in order to join the club one has to be a European nation. So as far as I am aware with the UK, the decliners will be confined to Russia, Belarus and the People's Republic of Farage.
His point is that if Canada can protect human rights while not being a member of the ECHR then so can the UK
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Too indignant. Your point is anticipated by Bart, indeed that's the whole point of his 3rd para.
Yes he has but it butters no parsnips. His post doesn't detract from the main feature that in order to join the club one has to be a European nation. So as far as I am aware with the UK, the decliners will be confined to Russia, Belarus and the People's Republic of Farage.
His point is that if Canada can protect human rights while not being a member of the ECHR then so can the UK
I know I am a bit thick but I understood his point. One could equally propose the opposite view of Bolsonaro's Brasil ( OK the electorate had their say) or Trump's USA.
All nuirses are angels so we don't need a scrutinising body. Oh wait, Beverly Allit
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Which higher court looks after Canada's affairs? Or Australia's?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Which higher court looks after Canada's affairs? Or Australia's?
What international regional court manages Trump USA's bad behaviour?
One of the reasons Badenoch is arranging her lip service review is to point out that when we leave, the GFA goes up in smoke, and do we care?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Which higher court looks after Canada's affairs? Or Australia's?
What international regional court manages Trump USA's bad behaviour?
One of the reasons Badenoch is arranging her lip service review is to point out that when we leave, the GFA goes up in smoke, and do we care?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Which higher court looks after Canada's affairs? Or Australia's?
What international regional court manages Trump USA's bad behaviour?
One of the reasons Badenoch is arranging her lip service review is to point out that when we leave, the GFA goes up in smoke, and do we care?
No.
I suspect Badenoch has already reached your conclusion. Brexit was shite, and you are still hoping to break even more conventions over your nebulous concept of "sovereignty".
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Which higher court looks after Canada's affairs? Or Australia's?
What international regional court manages Trump USA's bad behaviour?
One of the reasons Badenoch is arranging her lip service review is to point out that when we leave, the GFA goes up in smoke, and do we care?
No.
I suspect Badenoch has already reached your conclusion. Brexit was shite, and you are still hoping to break even more conventions over your nebulous concept of "sovereignty".
The GFA breaks a whole load of norms. Permanent power sharing isn't exactly the democratic ideal.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Russia doesn`t change its stripes – another massive strike on cities and ordinary life. They targeted almost all of Ukraine – Volyn, Lviv, Ternopil, Kyiv, Sumy, Poltava, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy, and Chernihiv regions. Some of the missiles and drones were shot down. I thank our warriors for their defense. But unfortunately, not all were intercepted.
In total, over 400 drones and more than 40 missiles – including ballistic missiles – were used in today’s attack. 49 people were wounded. Unfortunately, the number may increase – people are reaching out for help. As of now, three deaths have been confirmed – all of them were employees of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine. My sincere condolences to their families. All the necessary services are now on the ground, clearing the rubble and conducting rescue operations. All damage will definitely be restored.
Russia must be held accountable for this. Since the first minute of this war, they have been striking cities and villages to destroy life. We’ve done a lot together with the world to enable Ukraine to defend itself. But now is exactly the moment when America, Europe, and everyone around the world can stop this war together by pressuring Russia. If someone is not applying pressure and is giving the war more time to take lives – that is complicity and accountability. We must act decisively. https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1930889182802506190
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
Courts in the USA are already ordering plaintiffs to post bonds of $1 to short circuit Mr Trump's attempt in Section 70302 in his Big Beautiful Bill to make it impossible for Court Orders to be enforced on him.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
The point is we could ignore the ECHR. But reality is we can’t so the best thing to do is to sort out the ECHR’s remit so it matches the 21st century rather than 1945-7
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
The point is we could ignore the ECHR. But reality is we can’t so the best thing to do is to sort out the ECHR’s remit so it matches the 21st century rather than 1945-7
Reality is we can, we choose not to.
It's as much protection as a chocolate fireguard.
The only way to protect ourselves from a PM Tommy is to vote against him.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Which higher court looks after Canada's affairs? Or Australia's?
What international regional court manages Trump USA's bad behaviour?
One of the reasons Badenoch is arranging her lip service review is to point out that when we leave, the GFA goes up in smoke, and do we care?
No.
I suspect Badenoch has already reached your conclusion. Brexit was shite, and you are still hoping to break even more conventions over your nebulous concept of "sovereignty".
The snake oil has made things worse.
The two potential conclusions to reach are, don’t take any more of that snake oil, and repair the damage already done. Or that the snake oil only works if you take a double dose.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Seems to hold a grudge as long as Trump does - that may or may not be a good thing
Stansted is turning into quite a seductive airport. Just went from plane to the Stansted express to london in about 23 minutes and that included passports and hold luggage collection. Yes
Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X
Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Seems to hold a grudge as long as Trump does - that may or may not be a good thing
He’s got a lot to be grudgey about, TBF
He is a rabble rousing hoon but he has ALSO been persecuted by the UK legal system. Both these things can be true - indeed both ARE true
Stansted is turning into quite a seductive airport. Just went from plane to the Stansted express to london in about 23 minutes and that included passports and hold luggage collection. Yes
Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X
Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue
Now all they need is contactless ticketing. Fancy calling yourself a "London" airport, but being outside the contactless ticketing area.
Stansted is turning into quite a seductive airport. Just went from plane to the Stansted express to london in about 23 minutes and that included passports and hold luggage collection. Yes
Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X
Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue
Now all they need is contactless ticketing. Fancy calling yourself a "London" airport, but being outside the contactless ticketing area.
Yes that is quite wanky
The Trainline app does make it fairly smooth but nonetheless. Sort out contactless!
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Pound shop JD Vance
I think I'd want quite a lot of change in both cases.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Don’t get me overexcited
By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.
Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like
Seems to hold a grudge as long as Trump does - that may or may not be a good thing
He’s got a lot to be grudgey about, TBF
He is a rabble rousing hoon but he has ALSO been persecuted by the UK legal system. Both these things can be true - indeed both ARE true
Being prosecuted for breaking the law is not persecution.
Trump has taken the atmosphere of alienation, magnified it with his own apocalypticism, and, assaulting institutions across society, has created a revolutionary government. More this term than last, he is shifting the conditions in which we live.
Many of my Democratic friends have not fully internalized the magnitude of this historical shift.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
Parliament can do what it wants, surely, because it can rewrite the law.
It is the Executive that is bound by the laws set by parliament.
Courts in the USA are already ordering plaintiffs to post bonds of $1 to short circuit Mr Trump's attempt in Section 70302 in his Big Beautiful Bill to make it impossible for Court Orders to be enforced on him.
Stansted is turning into quite a seductive airport. Just went from plane to the Stansted express to london in about 23 minutes and that included passports and hold luggage collection. Yes
Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X
Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue
Now all they need is contactless ticketing. Fancy calling yourself a "London" airport, but being outside the contactless ticketing area.
Southend Airport calls itself London, too, and is outside the area.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
Sure you can pick nice nations.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
No because he will have taken us out like Putin and Lukashenko. I'd expect better of the Conservative Party.
Just been for a half-term trip into Manchester with smallest daughter. Next tram home not due for ten minutes so we thought we'd pop into the city gallery and get the one after. Why is the muaeums sector in England so desperate to squeeze 'having a nice time' out of the experience? The disapproval of its own collection drips from every notice. "These paintings attempt to show British 'morals'. The British empire was a terrible institution which expropriated goods, exploited colonised peoples and led to global inequality and the climate emergency." I mean, this is entirely arguable, though I'd argue there's considerably more to it than that. But you get this subtext ("you should be ashamed!") in pretty much every public sector funded museum in the country. I can't imagine any non-Anglophone country berates its people in this way. Can museums not focus a bit more on making a visit enjoyable and thereby attracting visitors?
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
Parliament can do what it wants, surely, because it can rewrite the law.
It is the Executive that is bound by the laws set by parliament.
Undoing or obfuscating that ability has been at the centre of attempts to 'modernise' the constitution going back to the Blair era, with 'international law' being one of the main tools used.
Courts in the USA are already ordering plaintiffs to post bonds of $1 to short circuit Mr Trump's attempt in Section 70302 in his Big Beautiful Bill to make it impossible for Court Orders to be enforced on him.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
No because he will have taken us out like Putin and Lukashenko. I'd expect better of the Conservative Party.
Because, of course, there were no human rights abuses in Russia before they left the ECHR. No sir.
Courts in the USA are already ordering plaintiffs to post bonds of $1 to short circuit Mr Trump's attempt in Section 70302 in his Big Beautiful Bill to make it impossible for Court Orders to be enforced on him.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
Courts in the USA are already ordering plaintiffs to post bonds of $1 to short circuit Mr Trump's attempt in Section 70302 in his Big Beautiful Bill to make it impossible for Court Orders to be enforced on him.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
No because he will have taken us out like Putin and Lukashenko. I'd expect better of the Conservative Party.
Because, of course, there were no human rights abuses in Russia before they left the ECHR. No sir.
It did it's job of ensuring an uneasy post war peace.
The right wing argument in the UK is Brexit sovereignty redux. " No one is gonna tell us what to do!"
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
No because he will have taken us out like Putin and Lukashenko. I'd expect better of the Conservative Party.
Because, of course, there were no human rights abuses in Russia before they left the ECHR. No sir.
It did it's job of ensuring an uneasy post war peace.
The right wing argument in the UK is Brexit sovereignty redux. " No one is gonna tell us what to do!"
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
And if he is do you think he will care what the ECHR thinks?
No because he will have taken us out like Putin and Lukashenko. I'd expect better of the Conservative Party.
Because, of course, there were no human rights abuses in Russia before they left the ECHR. No sir.
It did it's job of ensuring an uneasy post war peace.
The right wing argument in the UK is Brexit sovereignty redux. " No one is gonna tell us what to do!"
I am usually patient, but I have to say that I am looking forward to hearing how Luxembourg is increasing its military spending. (I'm sure that was the purpose of a recent visit by an occasional PB commenter.)
Luxembourg polls on the subject would be useful, too.
Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.
Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.
This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...
The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.
Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
You need a reading comprehension lesson.
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.
If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.
Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.
We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.
I prefer a model whereby certain things are verboten regardless of what parliament wants.
I thought Merz handled Trump well. When the Loser suggested D-Day was not happy for him; Merz replied that it led to the overthrow of the Nazi tyranny.
Comments
PayPal less so.
Many of my Democratic friends have not fully internalized the magnitude of this historical shift.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/opinion/democrats-trump-winning.html
Cue a little joke question anyway.
What would Nigel Farage sing if he saw that only people from places like Canada and Australia were coming to live here?
As for their version of Song of the Siren... that is eerie and stunningly beautiful.
Mason and (Lefty) Stourton bigging up Reform support in Scotland.
A friend of mine used to go to NA meetings with the Twins. I think I can say that - they never exactly hid their addictions cf: “Calfskin Smack”
Ok will rephrase - they won't.
(coat)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cm2309dlepno
And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?
The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.
Burgess Hill N
Liberal Democrats: 1088 (40.9%, +0.0)
Reform UK: 707 (26.6%, new)
Conservative: 618 (23.3%, -14.9)
Green Party: 153 (5.8%, -5.4)
Labour: 92 (3.5%, -6.2)
Liberal Democrats HOLD
Hassocks & Burgess Hill S
Liberal Democrats: 1694 (55.3%, -6.6)
Reform UK: 762 (24.9%, new)
Conservative: 310 (10.1%, -15.9)
Green Party: 175 (5.7%, new)
Labour: 123 (4.0%, -8.1)
Liberal Democrats HOLD
Nothing very surprising there but means 6 out of 8 by-elections have ended up as Reform v LD
(Haven't seen the Amber Valley result but I don't expect a sudden LD surge there)
And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.
Last updated on June 3rd 2025
45% Approve
50% Disapprove
5% Don't know"
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
@techneUK
📊NEW POLL: LATEST WESTMINSTER VOTER INTENTIONS
Reform UK: 31% (=)
Lab: 23% (+1)
Con: 17% (+1)
Lib Dem: 15% (-1)
Greens: 8% (-1)
SNP: 2% (=)
Others: 4% (=)
👥 1628 Surveyed
🔎 Field Work: 04 & 05 June 2025
🗓️ +/- 30 May 2025
🔗 Data: https://ll.ink/Lb52XT"
https://x.com/techneUK/status/1930928342653452372
All nuirses are angels so we don't need a scrutinising body. Oh wait, Beverly Allit
One of the reasons Badenoch is arranging her lip service review is to point out that when we leave, the GFA goes up in smoke, and do we care?
I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.
The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.
If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.
Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.
In total, over 400 drones and more than 40 missiles – including ballistic missiles – were used in today’s attack. 49 people were wounded. Unfortunately, the number may increase – people are reaching out for help. As of now, three deaths have been confirmed – all of them were employees of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine. My sincere condolences to their families. All the necessary services are now on the ground, clearing the rubble and conducting rescue operations. All damage will definitely be restored.
Russia must be held accountable for this. Since the first minute of this war, they have been striking cities and villages to destroy life. We’ve done a lot together with the world to enable Ukraine to defend itself. But now is exactly the moment when America, Europe, and everyone around the world can stop this war together by pressuring Russia. If someone is not applying pressure and is giving the war more time to take lives – that is complicity and accountability. We must act decisively.
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1930889182802506190
Luckily nobody heard it
4-4 with the LD's last night.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzlFqDHtU4U
It's as much protection as a chocolate fireguard.
The only way to protect ourselves from a PM Tommy is to vote against him.
The two potential conclusions to reach are, don’t take any more of that snake oil, and repair the damage already done. Or that the snake oil only works if you take a double dose.
RefUK 396
Lab 346
Con 53
LD 48
Green 20
Ind 11
ReFUK gain from Lab
Now the train will take 32 minutes to Tottenham Hale and then 15 minutes on the Tube to Kings X
Outbound was just as efficient. Luggage processing machines are eliminating the check in queue
He is a rabble rousing hoon but he has ALSO been persecuted by the UK legal system. Both these things can be true - indeed both ARE true
Lab 39.6% (-22.4)
Con 6,1% ( -13.5)
LD 5,5% (0.7)
Green 2.2% (-3)
Ind 1.3% ( new)
The Trainline app does make it fairly smooth but nonetheless. Sort out contactless!
‘We earn £345k, but soaring private school fees mean we can’t go on five holidays’
Labour’s VAT raid forces six-figure families to make lifestyle sacrifices
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/earn-345k-soaring-private-school-fees/ (£££)
The Press Gazette claims the Telegraph was done up like a kipper, although it does not currently appear in its corrections column.
Telegraph withdraws banker school fees story after being deceived by source
https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/faked-telegraph-article/
It is the Executive that is bound by the laws set by parliament.
This stupid infantile way he talks is such a cringe.
Why is the muaeums sector in England so desperate to squeeze 'having a nice time' out of the experience? The disapproval of its own collection drips from every notice. "These paintings attempt to show British 'morals'. The British empire was a terrible institution which expropriated goods, exploited colonised peoples and led to global inequality and the climate emergency."
I mean, this is entirely arguable, though I'd argue there's considerably more to it than that. But you get this subtext ("you should be ashamed!") in pretty much every public sector funded museum in the country. I can't imagine any non-Anglophone country berates its people in this way. Can museums not focus a bit more on making a visit enjoyable and thereby attracting visitors?
The right wing argument in the UK is Brexit sovereignty redux. " No one is gonna tell us what to do!"
NEW THREAD
Luxembourg polls on the subject would be useful, too.