Suella Braverman’s report on leaving the ECHR is useful and important - but only in the sense that it gives us the clearest idea yet what the dissident right clan is thinking.
I've tragically a different view on history than you.
The groundwork for the NIP and its successor was in my view Theresa May and her faithful sidekick Don Quixote, one Oliver Robbins.
It's as well to recall that Mrs May had no strategy or plan once being allowed to invoke Article 50 - this is relatively well documented. The EU ran rings around the UK in the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations* under Robbins lead and it is alleged that Barnier's no .2 - then Sabine Weyand was applauded by EU ambassador's for getting the UK to agree such a terrible ( poor) deal in the first place.
Frost is said to have been dealt a poor hand he'd inherited quite well, aided and abbeted by an incontinent PM by the name of Boris Johnson.
* May failed abjectly to get her WA ageement with backstop ( in perpertuity) through her diminished HoC agreement with DUO, 3 times - on reflection, getting the NIP sighed as we did probably got us a pretty hard Brexit as opposed to BRINO that May & Robbins ultimately wanted.
May screwed the pooch the moment she disavowed the EEA option, but her dog's dinner of a backstop was turned into a permanent front stop by Frost... culminating in the Windsor Framework which now cripples any attempt at UK wide legislation if it contravenes WF Article 2.
The key failure was May/Robbins falling into the EU trap, set by Weyand ( Selmayer) that the cost of Brexit was, in effect NI.
May/Robbins, knowing and planning for nothing better effectively ran the clock down by not having a NI strategy or fallback strategy that kept the geographic border in its rightful place.
The EU /Weyand couldn't believe their good look with the eejit Robbin's having made ( in haste and ignorance) such a strategic concession.
Worth reviewing the updated Great Deception which has some interesting observations in this department.
There was no way to avoid a sea border. The EEA was the only way to side step it. May's solution was bad. Frost's was worse. The backstop agreement at least bought a window to avert it.
May's backstop would have been BRINO - you know that - I know that - with the wisdom of hindsight - we probably got the best Brexit we could have got - it absolutely ain't perfect and NI might still be a casualty.
We got outplayed by the EU - the fact that it is a success is that Merz and Macron are still hating the fact that we stalled the EU project, possibly for ever.
This is what effectively killed May's backstop - BRINO - Brexit in Name Only - even the then Attorney General new the significance of what the Backstop really meant.
"..In the absence of agreed solutions being reached before the transition period is scheduled to end in December 2020, the UK will maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, should support North–South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement. This arrangement would remain in place until alternative solutions, most likely relying on advances in technology, could be introduced.."
The EU as we all can now acknowledge ( confess) would have kept us in permanent servitude/vassal status - why not with mugs like May/Robbins?
Crikey....to my shock, I pretty much agree with 99% of this. Fighting over the pros and cons of the ECHR, the GFA, and revisiting the Brexit nonsense is not worth the effort. The proponents of its abolition in the UK are mostly inept ideologues with no real proven 'doer' or charismatic leader amongst them. Christ on a bike Peter Lilley has risen from the crypt! Is Howard and his weird vowels on their way to? These people are our rotten yesterdays and probably are just enjoying the think tank champagne swills. Quite simply, we need new leaders with fresh ideas to address the rot. To be clear Farage, Johnson & friends are not the answer, but where to look? I will let you know
"I take the view that international law, particularly the ECHR is a diplomatic toolkit, and an instrument of influence. It is a framework upon which to base international relations, maintaining standards among like-minded allies and incentivising delinquent states. If navigated with skill, that is."
You seem to take two different positions on this question. On the one hand you make the practical point that it's all so difficult and complicated that it's not worth trying to extricate ourselves from the ECHR and associated EU leverage on our domestic politics, irrespective of how desirable leaving might be.
Then on the other hand you say you actually support the ECHR in principle.
The ECHR is, as you say, a tool, a lever that allows the internationalist Blob to impose its political will on those who do not want it - "incentivise delinquent states" as you put it.
Doesn't that make you another of those internationalist globalists?
"As I’ve previously remarked, ECHR exit has become an article of faith for the right."
Well I certainly don't speak for "the right" but I am opposed to an international "rights" court in principle, and I am opposed to how it is used as a lever to further foreign political aims and impose on states measures they would not freely choose for themselves.
I'm thinking that there likely comes a time in every nation state ( country) when there comes a time to p*** or get off the pot - happens to children too.
There have been lot's of debates on this and other fora about the role of what is called international law and the failing ( in parallel) international rules based order.
The act of ' getting off the pot' could be aligned with using and getting on with owns national law - maybe recognition that using our own national law is a more natural thing ( act) to do - than being at the beck and call of Internationalists who might have very different objectives to our own.
Maybe the UK isn't quite as mature as we thought we were - how depressing we need a foreign court to decide our fate.
Today's piece suggests that leaving the ECHR would blow up Northern Ireland and cause the EU to cancel its trade agreement with the UK, leading to chaos. You could call this the catastrophist position. It is an opinion - but although possible I do not think it is likely. Why? Because on the practical level, nothing much in Northern Ireland would change.
Second, it has not been demonstrated that Braverman is wrong to think that we could not successfully detach from the effects of the ECHR without leaving it. If she is right, then the points she makes follow from that.
Personally I think dealing with the UK's local Human Rights Act is the priority and is potentially easier (though not easy, given the opposition). But it is a question of emphasis, not principle. I am still opposed to the ECHR in principle.
And if you think membership of the ECHR is desirable as a principle, as Pete seems to, then isn't it inconsistent to advocate methods of circumventing it such as changing or scrapping the HRA? Shouldn't you rather embrace it wholeheartedly, as Starmer and his Attorney General Richard Hermer do?
You read a different post to me which is hardly surprising coming from a man (I assume you are a man?) who likes to criticise other's work and never offers alternative solutions.
From this and other various posts on this subject Pete is simply saying that to solve the problems of mass migration and instigate a policy of deportations the ECHR is a red herring and it is more important to tackle Blair's HRA.
Both North's are totally aware that in the end tough actions are needed requiring the will and determination to carry them out and they are what is missing rather than getting hung up on the ECHR.
Lord Frost gave away Northern Ireland but there was no way of Northern Ireland remaining with the main land?
The ECHR doesn’t have the power to enforce its decisions on the UK but we should be frightened of repercussions?
In the week we found out a useless Tory party manipulated the courts to get a super injunction to stop the release of information on up to 100k Afghan migrants coming into the UK - Peter thinks the establishment will play fair if we have discussions.
Won’t happen.
Reality is there will be extraordinary shenanigans and they will be vexatious.
So go all out for everything.
Attack their power base(s).
Keep them preoccupied so they don’t have time to do anything but defend themselves.
Otherwise you will be stuck arguing semantics and will end up nowhere.
International law is pretty toothless and illegitimate - in effect, some people made up some rules with no democratic oversight. Many states ignore with impunity. I would suggest that a new future government do the same. Who is going to do anything about it? No-one. It's all made up.
Hi, I agree. We need as many lawyers as the opposition has, but their time must be spent wisely, not throwing a penny down a well. It is a testament to how far Tony Blair thought the entanglement through, much as I hate to say it. Im not a lawyer, but have read enough law to see the problems the country faces.
As of now we have left the EU, I wonder if just paying the fines are the cheapest, simplest way to move on. It's a shakedown, either take people, or pay.
Hmm. "I understand international law and treaties; nobody else does". This article smacks of arrogance, to say the least. Maybe we can just ignore the ECHR without repudiating it, but we will have to re-educate every lawyer, civil servant and politician in the country first.
My guess is that all diplomacy is a game of poker.
A sane government would immediately repudiate Net Zero and start the process of re-building the economy. That will require that we pulol out of the EU's carbon trading scheme that Starmer has signed up to. It will require that we repudiate the "environmental protection" clause in our deal with the EU. So, if the EU hasn't fallen apart by the time of the next election we must have another bust-up anyway.
Thoughtful as ever. Like you I don't see leaving the ECHR as a panacea, but if it's got one major thing going for it then...who else is sick of domestic politicians hiding behind international bodies and making them 'the bogeyman' for anything unpopular? No wonder the amish wing of politics hate 'all things European' so much.
Maybe it's time we reflected on the whole 'they made us do it' or 'they stopped us doing what we wanted' narrative perpetuated by that same wing of politics for 30+ years...and consider how true it actually was? On balance this is a reason to be out, not in...take that 'hiding place' away and hold them accountable for their actions.
Ultimately the Cruella Blunderwomans of the world simply perpetuate this 'blame foreigners for everything' schtick and achieve less than nothing.
Do these people want sovereignty, really? Or a comforting narrative about 'bureaucrats' in far off lands twiddling their moustaches and plotting our downfall? One to ponder.
If the issue is with our own judges interpreting and applying their view of the ECHR via the HRA, then how can we address that?
If we don't simply denounce the ECHR in whole, and don't just denounce it for GB, what can we do? We could alter the territorial scope of the HRA, such that it only applies in NI. However in your prior piece you seemed to suggest that repealing the HRA would also just be a mess, so I guess you'd take the same view of limiting it to NI alone?
Even if we did take that approach (limiting HRA), it would have consequences. One obvious one being to encourage the migrants to move to NI, making that powder keg worse.
Possibly it would also impact upon the Brexit WA and TCA - since I vaguely recall the "citizens" bit for the former required them to still have access to such mechanisms?
So what steps can we realistically take to rein in the lawfaw and domestic judicial perspective on ECHR claims without at least tackling the HRA?
The missing ingredient to help solve the problems of mass migration, both legal and illegal, is the government's/politician's will and determination to tackle and address the many issues.
The ECHR and possibly even the HRA are red herrings.
What we need are politicians with guts to face down the critics from amongst others the bleeding heart liberal elite.
I've tragically a different view on history than you.
The groundwork for the NIP and its successor was in my view Theresa May and her faithful sidekick Don Quixote, one Oliver Robbins.
It's as well to recall that Mrs May had no strategy or plan once being allowed to invoke Article 50 - this is relatively well documented. The EU ran rings around the UK in the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations* under Robbins lead and it is alleged that Barnier's no .2 - then Sabine Weyand was applauded by EU ambassador's for getting the UK to agree such a terrible ( poor) deal in the first place.
Frost is said to have been dealt a poor hand he'd inherited quite well, aided and abbeted by an incontinent PM by the name of Boris Johnson.
* May failed abjectly to get her WA ageement with backstop ( in perpertuity) through her diminished HoC agreement with DUO, 3 times - on reflection, getting the NIP sighed as we did probably got us a pretty hard Brexit as opposed to BRINO that May & Robbins ultimately wanted.
May screwed the pooch the moment she disavowed the EEA option, but her dog's dinner of a backstop was turned into a permanent front stop by Frost... culminating in the Windsor Framework which now cripples any attempt at UK wide legislation if it contravenes WF Article 2.
The key failure was May/Robbins falling into the EU trap, set by Weyand ( Selmayer) that the cost of Brexit was, in effect NI.
May/Robbins, knowing and planning for nothing better effectively ran the clock down by not having a NI strategy or fallback strategy that kept the geographic border in its rightful place.
The EU /Weyand couldn't believe their good look with the eejit Robbin's having made ( in haste and ignorance) such a strategic concession.
Worth reviewing the updated Great Deception which has some interesting observations in this department.
There was no way to avoid a sea border. The EEA was the only way to side step it. May's solution was bad. Frost's was worse. The backstop agreement at least bought a window to avert it.
May's backstop would have been BRINO - you know that - I know that - with the wisdom of hindsight - we probably got the best Brexit we could have got - it absolutely ain't perfect and NI might still be a casualty.
We got outplayed by the EU - the fact that it is a success is that Merz and Macron are still hating the fact that we stalled the EU project, possibly for ever.
This is what effectively killed May's backstop - BRINO - Brexit in Name Only - even the then Attorney General new the significance of what the Backstop really meant.
"..In the absence of agreed solutions being reached before the transition period is scheduled to end in December 2020, the UK will maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, should support North–South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement/Belfast Agreement. This arrangement would remain in place until alternative solutions, most likely relying on advances in technology, could be introduced.."
The EU as we all can now acknowledge ( confess) would have kept us in permanent servitude/vassal status - why not with mugs like May/Robbins?
A depressingly accurate analysis in every detail. You and I have definitely endured the same decade.
Crikey....to my shock, I pretty much agree with 99% of this. Fighting over the pros and cons of the ECHR, the GFA, and revisiting the Brexit nonsense is not worth the effort. The proponents of its abolition in the UK are mostly inept ideologues with no real proven 'doer' or charismatic leader amongst them. Christ on a bike Peter Lilley has risen from the crypt! Is Howard and his weird vowels on their way to? These people are our rotten yesterdays and probably are just enjoying the think tank champagne swills. Quite simply, we need new leaders with fresh ideas to address the rot. To be clear Farage, Johnson & friends are not the answer, but where to look? I will let you know
"I take the view that international law, particularly the ECHR is a diplomatic toolkit, and an instrument of influence. It is a framework upon which to base international relations, maintaining standards among like-minded allies and incentivising delinquent states. If navigated with skill, that is."
You seem to take two different positions on this question. On the one hand you make the practical point that it's all so difficult and complicated that it's not worth trying to extricate ourselves from the ECHR and associated EU leverage on our domestic politics, irrespective of how desirable leaving might be.
Then on the other hand you say you actually support the ECHR in principle.
The ECHR is, as you say, a tool, a lever that allows the internationalist Blob to impose its political will on those who do not want it - "incentivise delinquent states" as you put it.
Doesn't that make you another of those internationalist globalists?
"As I’ve previously remarked, ECHR exit has become an article of faith for the right."
Well I certainly don't speak for "the right" but I am opposed to an international "rights" court in principle, and I am opposed to how it is used as a lever to further foreign political aims and impose on states measures they would not freely choose for themselves.
I'm thinking that there likely comes a time in every nation state ( country) when there comes a time to p*** or get off the pot - happens to children too.
There have been lot's of debates on this and other fora about the role of what is called international law and the failing ( in parallel) international rules based order.
The act of ' getting off the pot' could be aligned with using and getting on with owns national law - maybe recognition that using our own national law is a more natural thing ( act) to do - than being at the beck and call of Internationalists who might have very different objectives to our own.
Maybe the UK isn't quite as mature as we thought we were - how depressing we need a foreign court to decide our fate.
Two points.
Today's piece suggests that leaving the ECHR would blow up Northern Ireland and cause the EU to cancel its trade agreement with the UK, leading to chaos. You could call this the catastrophist position. It is an opinion - but although possible I do not think it is likely. Why? Because on the practical level, nothing much in Northern Ireland would change.
Second, it has not been demonstrated that Braverman is wrong to think that we could not successfully detach from the effects of the ECHR without leaving it. If she is right, then the points she makes follow from that.
Personally I think dealing with the UK's local Human Rights Act is the priority and is potentially easier (though not easy, given the opposition). But it is a question of emphasis, not principle. I am still opposed to the ECHR in principle.
And if you think membership of the ECHR is desirable as a principle, as Pete seems to, then isn't it inconsistent to advocate methods of circumventing it such as changing or scrapping the HRA? Shouldn't you rather embrace it wholeheartedly, as Starmer and his Attorney General Richard Hermer do?
Pete, to the best of knowledge has never said or believes membership of the ECHR is desirable.
You read a different post to me which is hardly surprising coming from a man (I assume you are a man?) who likes to criticise other's work and never offers alternative solutions.
From this and other various posts on this subject Pete is simply saying that to solve the problems of mass migration and instigate a policy of deportations the ECHR is a red herring and it is more important to tackle Blair's HRA.
Both North's are totally aware that in the end tough actions are needed requiring the will and determination to carry them out and they are what is missing rather than getting hung up on the ECHR.
Lord Frost gave away Northern Ireland but there was no way of Northern Ireland remaining with the main land?
The ECHR doesn’t have the power to enforce its decisions on the UK but we should be frightened of repercussions?
In the week we found out a useless Tory party manipulated the courts to get a super injunction to stop the release of information on up to 100k Afghan migrants coming into the UK - Peter thinks the establishment will play fair if we have discussions.
Won’t happen.
Reality is there will be extraordinary shenanigans and they will be vexatious.
So go all out for everything.
Attack their power base(s).
Keep them preoccupied so they don’t have time to do anything but defend themselves.
Otherwise you will be stuck arguing semantics and will end up nowhere.
International law is pretty toothless and illegitimate - in effect, some people made up some rules with no democratic oversight. Many states ignore with impunity. I would suggest that a new future government do the same. Who is going to do anything about it? No-one. It's all made up.
Hi, I agree. We need as many lawyers as the opposition has, but their time must be spent wisely, not throwing a penny down a well. It is a testament to how far Tony Blair thought the entanglement through, much as I hate to say it. Im not a lawyer, but have read enough law to see the problems the country faces.
As of now we have left the EU, I wonder if just paying the fines are the cheapest, simplest way to move on. It's a shakedown, either take people, or pay.
Hmm. "I understand international law and treaties; nobody else does". This article smacks of arrogance, to say the least. Maybe we can just ignore the ECHR without repudiating it, but we will have to re-educate every lawyer, civil servant and politician in the country first.
My guess is that all diplomacy is a game of poker.
A sane government would immediately repudiate Net Zero and start the process of re-building the economy. That will require that we pulol out of the EU's carbon trading scheme that Starmer has signed up to. It will require that we repudiate the "environmental protection" clause in our deal with the EU. So, if the EU hasn't fallen apart by the time of the next election we must have another bust-up anyway.
I was wondering if you paid attention to Betz…
It is as you called it Pete, I wouldn’t be surprised of they ended up giving NI to Ireland…
Thoughtful as ever. Like you I don't see leaving the ECHR as a panacea, but if it's got one major thing going for it then...who else is sick of domestic politicians hiding behind international bodies and making them 'the bogeyman' for anything unpopular? No wonder the amish wing of politics hate 'all things European' so much.
Maybe it's time we reflected on the whole 'they made us do it' or 'they stopped us doing what we wanted' narrative perpetuated by that same wing of politics for 30+ years...and consider how true it actually was? On balance this is a reason to be out, not in...take that 'hiding place' away and hold them accountable for their actions.
Ultimately the Cruella Blunderwomans of the world simply perpetuate this 'blame foreigners for everything' schtick and achieve less than nothing.
Do these people want sovereignty, really? Or a comforting narrative about 'bureaucrats' in far off lands twiddling their moustaches and plotting our downfall? One to ponder.
Would this issue of Northern Ireland not be entirely solved by Irish reunification? Can't we just hand it over?
If the issue is with our own judges interpreting and applying their view of the ECHR via the HRA, then how can we address that?
If we don't simply denounce the ECHR in whole, and don't just denounce it for GB, what can we do? We could alter the territorial scope of the HRA, such that it only applies in NI. However in your prior piece you seemed to suggest that repealing the HRA would also just be a mess, so I guess you'd take the same view of limiting it to NI alone?
Even if we did take that approach (limiting HRA), it would have consequences. One obvious one being to encourage the migrants to move to NI, making that powder keg worse.
Possibly it would also impact upon the Brexit WA and TCA - since I vaguely recall the "citizens" bit for the former required them to still have access to such mechanisms?
So what steps can we realistically take to rein in the lawfaw and domestic judicial perspective on ECHR claims without at least tackling the HRA?
The missing ingredient to help solve the problems of mass migration, both legal and illegal, is the government's/politician's will and determination to tackle and address the many issues.
The ECHR and possibly even the HRA are red herrings.
What we need are politicians with guts to face down the critics from amongst others the bleeding heart liberal elite.