"The right has an aversion to international law, but the problem is not international law. "
The aversion to international law comes from the fact that it is a sleight-of-hand by those who want to replace national government with a one-world order. Part of this project is to call the dense and growing thicket of international conventions and agreements "law". Which then permits ignorant people to use the word "illegal" just as inappropriately.
It is inimical to liberty and makes democracy an empty façade.
On the ECHR, the priority is to detach its effect from our national law, which means for a start getting rid of the Human Rights Act.
There is no need to replace the Human Rights Act, or the ECHR, if we leave it, with something new. Our rights are contained within our own freely chosen national law.
If we remove domestic law which embodies a treaty, then it is down to the judiciary to assert in individual cases that we are failing to comply with obligations under said treaty, but I remain unconvinced that a citizen of a foreign country has any locus standi to mount an appeal to Strasbourg on that basis; nor to be entitled to legal aid to do so. Repealing the HRA 1998 would cut it off at the knees. Passing legislation that requires all applications for visas etc to be made outside the jurisdiction, with no exceptions, would deal with the problem once and for all because we could have surety requirements and abolish all work visas and student visas below PhD level.
a good project, I'll throw you a few quid when I'm more flush.
If you want some input around civil liberties, freedom of expression and the like I've got plenty to add in that area, you know where to find me. Good luck with it.
Your approach to the problem of the ECHR is interesting and I believe correct. Despite being one of the founding members of the EU, France does not slavishly implement every policy coming out from Brussels. The UK now with Brexit has even less reason to follow the edicts of the ECHR. The problem is the blob.
I was reading this enlightening and troubling article by Tree of Woe on the progressivism programmed biases within mainstream AI and after watching the Dominic Cummings lecture on the shadow rule of the cabinet by unknown hands I came to a explanatory reason as to why the UK is being run like a trainwreck.
Is it because the unknown hands that are making the decisions are a progressivley biased AI within the Cabinet Office? Is the UK being used as an experiment and is there no limit to the unexplanatory bizaar decisions being acted upon in the UK because it’s a total experiment and they will run it until its end of complete destruction, if need be. It explains the preferential treatment of non-ethnic, the strange clean energy matrix which can be AI driven, it may explain the unethical Judge rulings. It also could explain the odd decisions during c0vid, even the media could be mostly Ai written, it would definitely explain some incongruencies.
They saw England as a washed up post-industrialised corpse and thought ‘Operation Ai is a go’, the only part of UK they care about is City of London and that is basically a seperate state anyway.
Glad you're on board with Restore Britain! Yeah, yeah, you're on the outside of the tent pissing in, but you've chosen your tent. Can't wait to see your website!
You're being far too generous in crediting the Tories' Rwanda policy with testing the limits of international law on immigration policy. The whole Rwanda thing was a panicky, ill-thought-through response to the need to 'do something'. It sucked up huge bandwidth to no positive effect. The latter would also be the fate of your Strasbourg test case suggestion, I would suggest.
Same old same old, we can't leave because someone will be angry and throw their toys out of the pram Brexit nonsense. If Ireland wants to take issue with the GFA what is the very worst that can happen?
Diddly squat. The Irish have done the sums and they cannot afford unification. The UK would be delighted to be rid of the enormous funding black hole that is Northern Ireland. If the UK govt decided for some insane reason they wanted to hang on to NI they could simply threaten the Irish with a removal of the the Common Travel Area (for instance) and thereby end the ability of Irish citizens to move to and work in the UK. How do you think the Irish would like that?
Anyway all this is pie in the sky, the IRA aren't going to start bombing in NI again and if they did they'd lose all sympathy immediately. The GFA suits all parties, that's why it was signed up to. If you start ignoring agreements you're signed up to and pretend you're still signed up to then you're going to look ridiculous
I’m wondering whether your calling the dissident right ‘slop’ and sloganeers is because you don’t see an abrupt shift in what the high-status beliefs are coming upon us. Or that it wouldn’t matter, ie that the lawyers of a hold-out leftist/globalist faction will continue to exercise the letter of the law to our detriment, and even to the detriment of many elites.
ie that those lawyers won’t experience strange delays, unfavourable decisions, meagre payouts, lack of funds etc in a changed moral environment.
Is ‘friend/enemy distinction’ a slop slogan? What causes change in elite moral norms? It’s a change in who your friends must be. Friends get the spirit of the law; enemies get the letter. Surely not all elites are going to fly to Dubai.
I think that Covid, Epstein etc show that laws don’t mean a lot where protecting friends and punishing enemies is concerned. Whether that means the unambiguous ‘Clear them out!’ can work, the DR’s own net zero, idk. Perhaps a motte (you) and bailey (Bowden) presentation?
"The right has an aversion to international law, but the problem is not international law. "
The aversion to international law comes from the fact that it is a sleight-of-hand by those who want to replace national government with a one-world order. Part of this project is to call the dense and growing thicket of international conventions and agreements "law". Which then permits ignorant people to use the word "illegal" just as inappropriately.
It is inimical to liberty and makes democracy an empty façade.
On the ECHR, the priority is to detach its effect from our national law, which means for a start getting rid of the Human Rights Act.
There is no need to replace the Human Rights Act, or the ECHR, if we leave it, with something new. Our rights are contained within our own freely chosen national law.
If we remove domestic law which embodies a treaty, then it is down to the judiciary to assert in individual cases that we are failing to comply with obligations under said treaty, but I remain unconvinced that a citizen of a foreign country has any locus standi to mount an appeal to Strasbourg on that basis; nor to be entitled to legal aid to do so. Repealing the HRA 1998 would cut it off at the knees. Passing legislation that requires all applications for visas etc to be made outside the jurisdiction, with no exceptions, would deal with the problem once and for all because we could have surety requirements and abolish all work visas and student visas below PhD level.
Great work.
Interesting. Looking forward to it.
a good project, I'll throw you a few quid when I'm more flush.
If you want some input around civil liberties, freedom of expression and the like I've got plenty to add in that area, you know where to find me. Good luck with it.
Great article, thanks and looking forward to the website.
Enjoy RIAT. Got caught up in the traffic today as we live not very far away.
Weather doesn't look too good, although it might brighten up Saturday afternoon.
Your approach to the problem of the ECHR is interesting and I believe correct. Despite being one of the founding members of the EU, France does not slavishly implement every policy coming out from Brussels. The UK now with Brexit has even less reason to follow the edicts of the ECHR. The problem is the blob.
I was reading this enlightening and troubling article by Tree of Woe on the progressivism programmed biases within mainstream AI and after watching the Dominic Cummings lecture on the shadow rule of the cabinet by unknown hands I came to a explanatory reason as to why the UK is being run like a trainwreck.
Is it because the unknown hands that are making the decisions are a progressivley biased AI within the Cabinet Office? Is the UK being used as an experiment and is there no limit to the unexplanatory bizaar decisions being acted upon in the UK because it’s a total experiment and they will run it until its end of complete destruction, if need be. It explains the preferential treatment of non-ethnic, the strange clean energy matrix which can be AI driven, it may explain the unethical Judge rulings. It also could explain the odd decisions during c0vid, even the media could be mostly Ai written, it would definitely explain some incongruencies.
They saw England as a washed up post-industrialised corpse and thought ‘Operation Ai is a go’, the only part of UK they care about is City of London and that is basically a seperate state anyway.
Article: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/your-ai-hates-you
Glad you're on board with Restore Britain! Yeah, yeah, you're on the outside of the tent pissing in, but you've chosen your tent. Can't wait to see your website!
You're being far too generous in crediting the Tories' Rwanda policy with testing the limits of international law on immigration policy. The whole Rwanda thing was a panicky, ill-thought-through response to the need to 'do something'. It sucked up huge bandwidth to no positive effect. The latter would also be the fate of your Strasbourg test case suggestion, I would suggest.
Same old same old, we can't leave because someone will be angry and throw their toys out of the pram Brexit nonsense. If Ireland wants to take issue with the GFA what is the very worst that can happen?
Diddly squat. The Irish have done the sums and they cannot afford unification. The UK would be delighted to be rid of the enormous funding black hole that is Northern Ireland. If the UK govt decided for some insane reason they wanted to hang on to NI they could simply threaten the Irish with a removal of the the Common Travel Area (for instance) and thereby end the ability of Irish citizens to move to and work in the UK. How do you think the Irish would like that?
Anyway all this is pie in the sky, the IRA aren't going to start bombing in NI again and if they did they'd lose all sympathy immediately. The GFA suits all parties, that's why it was signed up to. If you start ignoring agreements you're signed up to and pretend you're still signed up to then you're going to look ridiculous
I’m wondering whether your calling the dissident right ‘slop’ and sloganeers is because you don’t see an abrupt shift in what the high-status beliefs are coming upon us. Or that it wouldn’t matter, ie that the lawyers of a hold-out leftist/globalist faction will continue to exercise the letter of the law to our detriment, and even to the detriment of many elites.
ie that those lawyers won’t experience strange delays, unfavourable decisions, meagre payouts, lack of funds etc in a changed moral environment.
Is ‘friend/enemy distinction’ a slop slogan? What causes change in elite moral norms? It’s a change in who your friends must be. Friends get the spirit of the law; enemies get the letter. Surely not all elites are going to fly to Dubai.
I think that Covid, Epstein etc show that laws don’t mean a lot where protecting friends and punishing enemies is concerned. Whether that means the unambiguous ‘Clear them out!’ can work, the DR’s own net zero, idk. Perhaps a motte (you) and bailey (Bowden) presentation?