Fascinating reading, Pete, as always. Over recent months I've found my own views aligning more with yours on ECHR withdrawal. Your arguments on political bandwidth and the lessons of Brexit and BA/GFA negotiations have persuaded me.
Napoleon and Mike Tyson made the same point, but Mr Tyson expressed more pithily: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.' Best avoid getting punched, at least too many times. The right need to learn this.
Actually the right need to punch back harder and if necessary hit their opponent with the stool as well. Politicians and lawyers are the scourge of mankind. The Gordian Knot approach solves many problems. Likewise Cromwell's approach.
Your assessment of the legal options and political will (or lack thereof) feels correct and therefore so does your conclusion about the paths that will be taken. Either inadequate (for various reasons) or, slightly less likely, a chaotic overreaction.
Let's assume now that that's how it plays out. Play the tape ahead to that world. What productive moves could be made in that environment, which could start to be set up now? You mentioned a legal scramble to establish precedents, for example. May as well think now about what those precedents would need to be if the UK is going to survive, and how to win them.
The Trump administration came in like a wrecking ball specifically because they had done their homework ahead of time, on the moment of victory beginning a campaign to deploy the right moves in the right sequence to pin and pincer, and stair step to success (hopefully).
Reform may not be capable of just doing that for us like we hope someone would, but could patriotic individuals and groups do a lot of the legal maneuvering?
Well researched and written up Pete and in essence this is a case of less is more.
As to politicians 'choosing not to' undertake take what is necessary I'd say it is more to do with incompetence and ignorance than actually voiding the issue.
Finally! Thank you. I have been saying this for months. Just repeal the enabling legislation and ignore the ECHR.
Fascinating reading, Pete, as always. Over recent months I've found my own views aligning more with yours on ECHR withdrawal. Your arguments on political bandwidth and the lessons of Brexit and BA/GFA negotiations have persuaded me.
Napoleon and Mike Tyson made the same point, but Mr Tyson expressed more pithily: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.' Best avoid getting punched, at least too many times. The right need to learn this.
Actually the right need to punch back harder and if necessary hit their opponent with the stool as well. Politicians and lawyers are the scourge of mankind. The Gordian Knot approach solves many problems. Likewise Cromwell's approach.
Your assessment of the legal options and political will (or lack thereof) feels correct and therefore so does your conclusion about the paths that will be taken. Either inadequate (for various reasons) or, slightly less likely, a chaotic overreaction.
Let's assume now that that's how it plays out. Play the tape ahead to that world. What productive moves could be made in that environment, which could start to be set up now? You mentioned a legal scramble to establish precedents, for example. May as well think now about what those precedents would need to be if the UK is going to survive, and how to win them.
The Trump administration came in like a wrecking ball specifically because they had done their homework ahead of time, on the moment of victory beginning a campaign to deploy the right moves in the right sequence to pin and pincer, and stair step to success (hopefully).
Reform may not be capable of just doing that for us like we hope someone would, but could patriotic individuals and groups do a lot of the legal maneuvering?
Well researched and written up Pete and in essence this is a case of less is more.
As to politicians 'choosing not to' undertake take what is necessary I'd say it is more to do with incompetence and ignorance than actually voiding the issue.