I thank you - you must have read my comment on your last article! As a nobody, I have been shouting into the void for years that 'international LAW' is something of a myth. You cannot have a law that you cannot enforce. Who is going to square up to the UK if we decide any particular treaty is not in our interest? The intergalactic police? The most that would happen is a bit of muttering from other parties. However not even that will happen. Nobody cares about anything except MONEY. No money is involved, so no-one will even mutter. Nobody effing cares. The UK government has spotlight syndrome.
This government and all previous governments going back to John Major in 1990 have gradually got worse.
Blair's constitutional and international meddling/wars have caused no end of serious problems at home and abroad, followed by Brown and Cameron. the heir to Blair, useless May, the Oaf Johnson, Truss, Sunak(actually not that bad IMO) and now the worst of all Starmer with his possible replacement our Angie!!!!
Unless and until we get a new breed of leaders,with guts, knowledge and competence, we are going to hell in a hand cart.
Sadly IMO things will have to get worse before they improve and these reforms MUST be part of the mix to restore our democracy and improve our governance.
Having read Public International Law as part of my Law degree, I must respond to your valid point about enforcement. These laws are effective in the civilised and would-be civilised world. Do not discount them.
Remember the Geneva Convention? It was obeyed by the Germans for fear of reprisals. The prisoners-of-war under the Japanese fared far worse as Japan was not a signee. How do you think the International Law of the Sea operates? It’s tough to enforce, yet it does make a difference and piracy on the high seas would be a much worse problem without it.
The major problems with International Law is the years it takes to get agreements finalised and corruption by the international bodies to enforce it. Look at WHO and WEF. Sadly, they are not powerless and their original creation and function was beneficial.
If we want them to work efficiently, farming the Chairmanship of Committees and Departments to third world Communists is something that must be more easily dealt with than at present. I believe that America, who is the powerhouse behind the UN and NATO, needs to regain control so that International Law is properly administered and underpinned by force again.
There was a Law of sea before the US Navy grew to be powerful enough to enforce it. The British Royal Navy exercised it across the world in the days of Empire. Today they are still patrolling in various parts of the world in conjunction with both NATO allies, Commonwealth navies and other friendly nations.
Without wishing to play legal top trumps, I have a Masters in Constitutional Law, a large part of which was taken up with the Law of the Sea.
The point is, international law is effectively a handshake agreement between parties. There is no mechanism for enforcement. When it suits countries to cooperate on a particular matter, they do - and they agree the rules in a treaty. They submit disputes to international arbitration. However, not all countries sign up to all treaties. The US was a signatory to LOSC , for example, but never ratified it. They choose to recognise the treaty when it suits them, but not otherwise.
It is all voluntary cooperation. It's like a board game. When you start playing, you agree to abide by the rules of the game. If you're a bad loser and the game goes against you, you might storm off in a huff. What are the other players going to do? Carry on without you or abandon the game. Whatever. They can't make you play. International law is exactly the same.
Might is right in geopolitics. You can play nicely together or you can decide you don't want to play. The UK can decide not to play and just ignore the ECHR.
A board game where the rules get to change after you started playing, and you find out you're in a different game to the one you joined.
It always seems to me that the term "international law" is a misnomer. Using the term at all plays into the hands of those who want to establish a world order.
Hah! Yes! Exactly! And the rules are so one dimensional they take no account of relevant factors like.....a welfare state attracts third worlders like wasps to a picnic. Although that was no doubt deliberate - How to Break Down the Nation State, Lesson 1: move the third world to the developed world.
"One ring to rule them all..." 100% - as the proponents and adherents of One World Government (aka global fascism) with their 'international rules based order' dream about (back in your box, irrelevant pleb!)
Reprisals were held at the courts in Nuremberg. Other reprisals can come from the International community by sanctions and loss of trade deals. My point is that International Law can be, and usually is, effective.
No, I’m not “having a laugh”. Most did. If they shot our prisoners, we could shoot theirs. They broke the law before Dunkirk disgracefully but that horror didn’t emerge for some time and we didn’t escalate the issue.
But we digress, this is about leaving the ECHR. I believe we should. It is not likely to be reformed quickly enough to mend the loopholes and we need to remain being seen as valid contributors to legal bonds or all the treaties we have will be jeopardised.
I believe in civilisation, in law and order, and protecting the innocent. I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist even when we have leaders acting like Bond villains. This is a time for holding on to your principles, not for chucking them all aside because something looks awkward to deliver.
I disagree with the article. Perhaps you don’t. We shall leave it there.
Civilisation doesn't come from laws. Laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things. Law doesn't create peace and prosperity, nor does it protect the innocent. Law is not magic. Man-made laws are just game rules.
I didn’t say that civilisation comes from laws! Sometimes, Bettina, I get the impression you are trolling me. We have spoken before and you do seem to be masterly at non sequiturs and looking to destroy the person rather than their opinion, just like Leftists so often do.
I’m not telling you anymore about myself other than those who have commanded ships, both military and merchant, abound in my family and that I have sailed in foreign waters often throughout my life.
If you regard yourself as an expert on the Law of the Sea, why are you trying to make a case for it being worthless? Those who live by it and depend on it know better. We can do without your University instilled anarchy.
Looking at, and accepting in good faith the evidence that Pete presents, it shows that the ECHR is a tiny sideshow in preventing deportations that has been blown out of all proportion by assorted politicians and media blowhards. There are clever people behind all of this, egging on the egotistical hot air heads. Logically, the clever people must know the evidence Pete presents as they are investing their money, they wouldn't do it on a whim, and they are not all over the media bigging themselves up either. So we must ask ourselves what the real agenda is behind the big push to exit the ECHR?
"So we must ask ourselves what the real agenda is behind the big push to exit the ECHR"
...
Did you have some agenda in mind?
If their wish is to leave the ECHR and also scrap the UK Human Rights Act, then the only objection I have seen is the practical one that it might be too difficult.
Personally I would prefer to be out of it (and the International Criminal Court too) but I can accept it may be difficult and that there is other lower-hanging fruit.
But without a government that is prepared to act, none of it will matter.
You make an interesting point about 'the British blob' for sure.
I suppose the question is...given how deep the malaise is, how are we going to get rid of the mass of judges, civil servants, police chiefs, university lecturers etc? And who are we going to replace them with?
Even if we repeal bad law the bad people prone to interpreting law as they see fit stay in place.
There's a cancer that needs removing from so many of our public institutions, the idea of leaving the EU/ECHR/NATO/whatever as a silver bullet is one for the birds.
Build new ones with new people in parallel. Pension off the old ones once the new ones are ready. It won't be easy but creating from scratch is easier than reforming.
the problem is they're going to come from the same system of Futher/Higher Education that's infested with the same mentality. The 'orthodoxy' is basically taught as fact and has been for what feels like eons. Shit in, shit out etc...
I agree that will need to abe avoided but it's quite possible. First favour those without degrees.
Second where the right people don't exist without a degree very carefully vet those who have one. I am sure there are many people who went through the system who hate it as much as those on the outside. The selection process needs to find those people.
Then ofc you need an 'auditing' system to check performance once in the job and rapidly remove any dodgy ones who slip through the net.
The English Constitution Party took its case to the courts a few days ago.
The decision on whether ECPs case over the Runcorn & Helsby by election going forward depends on the two judges opinion - due in 2/3 weeks.
It was evident the judges ignored English law and were only interested in Human Rights laws as interpreted by the ECHR (the ECHR whose position in British law is advisory only).
This is how the judiciary work.
They have been educated in law based on a European model and for many the ultimate career success is being promoted to the ECHR.
That is why we need to leave the ECHR.
The judiciary needs to take heed of obligations still in place under English legal rights that have been pushed into the shadows.
The government needs to make plain we are leaving the ECHR and that they are irrelevant to our laws forcing them to refer to OUR legal system.
It was constructed over many hundreds of years and since joining the EU, ignored.
I think you’re missing the point about leaving the ECHR. It’s used against us by phoney lefty lawyers and degenerates like Lord HawHaw (I mean Hermer). We need to leave to protect ourselves from ourselves.
Although you went around the houses reviewing the ECHR issue it was time well spent because it gives your conclusion more weight.
The bottom line, as you conclude, is our sovereign parliament just needs to kick some arse but the trouble is you need politicians with guts, knowledge and competence and in Pasha Glubb's Age of Decadence the quality of leaders is always piss poor.
"The thing for me, is that if you start talking about leaving all these conventions and treaties, then you tacitly admit they are supreme."
...
"You are stating that it is necessary for us to leave in order to restore British sovereignty."
...
I don't think anyone is stating that. This puts me in mind of the sophistical games Remainers played with the term "sovereignty" when we were in the EU, attaching a special and highly legalistic sense to the word when they knew full well what people meant when they talked about sovereignty. Thus they sniffily told us that being in the EU was no loss of sovereignty so what was the big deal?
Surely the bottom line is that if the ECHR and its local implementation in the UK's Human Rights Act prevent us dealing with urgent problems, we should be free to act to remedy those problems. That is what most people intend when they talk about sovereignty.
The first priority is to remove the Human Rights Act, or at a minimum those parts that stand in the way of effective action - which in this case means expelling illegal immigrants. If membership of the ECHR then manifests itself as an obstacle, then that needs dealing with too.
And if parliament is going to "act as it sees fit" then that means changing the law in order to make the measures government wishes to take possible.
What the government cannot do - and this is entirely reasonable - is break its own laws by its actions. So it needs to exercise sovereignty by changing the laws.
Underlying all of this is the fundamental fact that has been absent up to now, namely a government that actually wishes to act in the first place.
Don't need to leave ECHR/HRA. Just pass a Bill dealing with what you want, specifically overriding anything to the contrary ('notwithstanding' etc.) It is so easy to do that the failure of either Party to do it argues malicious intent.
This is the kind of thinking we need - assert Parliamentary sovereignty above all else and defund all arms of the state that have been compromised (most) but not before setting up clean parallel institutions - including a new judiciary. Pension off all the employees - if they are getting good money they will be too scared to kick up a fuss and jeopardise it - because their payments will be conditional on staying quiet and taking part in no political activity.
I thank you - you must have read my comment on your last article! As a nobody, I have been shouting into the void for years that 'international LAW' is something of a myth. You cannot have a law that you cannot enforce. Who is going to square up to the UK if we decide any particular treaty is not in our interest? The intergalactic police? The most that would happen is a bit of muttering from other parties. However not even that will happen. Nobody cares about anything except MONEY. No money is involved, so no-one will even mutter. Nobody effing cares. The UK government has spotlight syndrome.
This government and all previous governments going back to John Major in 1990 have gradually got worse.
Blair's constitutional and international meddling/wars have caused no end of serious problems at home and abroad, followed by Brown and Cameron. the heir to Blair, useless May, the Oaf Johnson, Truss, Sunak(actually not that bad IMO) and now the worst of all Starmer with his possible replacement our Angie!!!!
Unless and until we get a new breed of leaders,with guts, knowledge and competence, we are going to hell in a hand cart.
Sadly IMO things will have to get worse before they improve and these reforms MUST be part of the mix to restore our democracy and improve our governance.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
Agreed! You sent me a copy of The Harrogate Agenda 👍🏻
Excellent!!!!
Having read Public International Law as part of my Law degree, I must respond to your valid point about enforcement. These laws are effective in the civilised and would-be civilised world. Do not discount them.
Remember the Geneva Convention? It was obeyed by the Germans for fear of reprisals. The prisoners-of-war under the Japanese fared far worse as Japan was not a signee. How do you think the International Law of the Sea operates? It’s tough to enforce, yet it does make a difference and piracy on the high seas would be a much worse problem without it.
The major problems with International Law is the years it takes to get agreements finalised and corruption by the international bodies to enforce it. Look at WHO and WEF. Sadly, they are not powerless and their original creation and function was beneficial.
If we want them to work efficiently, farming the Chairmanship of Committees and Departments to third world Communists is something that must be more easily dealt with than at present. I believe that America, who is the powerhouse behind the UN and NATO, needs to regain control so that International Law is properly administered and underpinned by force again.
Do you think their would be any law at sea without the US Navy?
There was a Law of sea before the US Navy grew to be powerful enough to enforce it. The British Royal Navy exercised it across the world in the days of Empire. Today they are still patrolling in various parts of the world in conjunction with both NATO allies, Commonwealth navies and other friendly nations.
Yes and before the Royal Navy? Do you think there is any "law of the sea" without the ability to enforce it?
Mr Blah. The Royal Navy has its origins in King Alfred’s reign. What are you talking about?
But the Royal navy wasn't a global force able to police the seas till 1805. What do you think the "law of the sea" was before 1805 and why?
Without wishing to play legal top trumps, I have a Masters in Constitutional Law, a large part of which was taken up with the Law of the Sea.
The point is, international law is effectively a handshake agreement between parties. There is no mechanism for enforcement. When it suits countries to cooperate on a particular matter, they do - and they agree the rules in a treaty. They submit disputes to international arbitration. However, not all countries sign up to all treaties. The US was a signatory to LOSC , for example, but never ratified it. They choose to recognise the treaty when it suits them, but not otherwise.
It is all voluntary cooperation. It's like a board game. When you start playing, you agree to abide by the rules of the game. If you're a bad loser and the game goes against you, you might storm off in a huff. What are the other players going to do? Carry on without you or abandon the game. Whatever. They can't make you play. International law is exactly the same.
Might is right in geopolitics. You can play nicely together or you can decide you don't want to play. The UK can decide not to play and just ignore the ECHR.
"It's like a board game"
A board game where the rules get to change after you started playing, and you find out you're in a different game to the one you joined.
It always seems to me that the term "international law" is a misnomer. Using the term at all plays into the hands of those who want to establish a world order.
One ring to rule them all...
Hah! Yes! Exactly! And the rules are so one dimensional they take no account of relevant factors like.....a welfare state attracts third worlders like wasps to a picnic. Although that was no doubt deliberate - How to Break Down the Nation State, Lesson 1: move the third world to the developed world.
"One ring to rule them all..." 100% - as the proponents and adherents of One World Government (aka global fascism) with their 'international rules based order' dream about (back in your box, irrelevant pleb!)
“Remember the Geneva Convention? It was obeyed by the Germans for fear of reprisals.”
The phrase you use “for fear of reprisals” invalidates your point about some kind of international court enforcing the law.
Any “reprisals” would have been undertaken by an enemy combatant.
Reprisals were held at the courts in Nuremberg. Other reprisals can come from the International community by sanctions and loss of trade deals. My point is that International Law can be, and usually is, effective.
Are you having a laugh? Many Germans did NOT obey the The Geneva Convention,
I'm posting this again as I'm not sure my first response attached to your post.
Are you having a laugh as many Germans did NOT obey the Geneva Convention.
No, I’m not “having a laugh”. Most did. If they shot our prisoners, we could shoot theirs. They broke the law before Dunkirk disgracefully but that horror didn’t emerge for some time and we didn’t escalate the issue.
But we digress, this is about leaving the ECHR. I believe we should. It is not likely to be reformed quickly enough to mend the loopholes and we need to remain being seen as valid contributors to legal bonds or all the treaties we have will be jeopardised.
I believe in civilisation, in law and order, and protecting the innocent. I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist even when we have leaders acting like Bond villains. This is a time for holding on to your principles, not for chucking them all aside because something looks awkward to deliver.
I disagree with the article. Perhaps you don’t. We shall leave it there.
Civilisation doesn't come from laws. Laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things. Law doesn't create peace and prosperity, nor does it protect the innocent. Law is not magic. Man-made laws are just game rules.
I didn’t say that civilisation comes from laws! Sometimes, Bettina, I get the impression you are trolling me. We have spoken before and you do seem to be masterly at non sequiturs and looking to destroy the person rather than their opinion, just like Leftists so often do.
I’m not telling you anymore about myself other than those who have commanded ships, both military and merchant, abound in my family and that I have sailed in foreign waters often throughout my life.
If you regard yourself as an expert on the Law of the Sea, why are you trying to make a case for it being worthless? Those who live by it and depend on it know better. We can do without your University instilled anarchy.
"We just need a PM to say "We're elected, you're not, we're doing this thing, f*ck you".
If, then, anyone's got a problem with that, let them take their best shot."
Yes, there are problems. 1: The present PM was "elected" by only 20% of those who could vote. 2: The PM is a de facto dictator.
And useless wanker!
Looking at, and accepting in good faith the evidence that Pete presents, it shows that the ECHR is a tiny sideshow in preventing deportations that has been blown out of all proportion by assorted politicians and media blowhards. There are clever people behind all of this, egging on the egotistical hot air heads. Logically, the clever people must know the evidence Pete presents as they are investing their money, they wouldn't do it on a whim, and they are not all over the media bigging themselves up either. So we must ask ourselves what the real agenda is behind the big push to exit the ECHR?
That is the question isn't it? And why is The Telegraph so hot for it?
"So we must ask ourselves what the real agenda is behind the big push to exit the ECHR"
...
Did you have some agenda in mind?
If their wish is to leave the ECHR and also scrap the UK Human Rights Act, then the only objection I have seen is the practical one that it might be too difficult.
Personally I would prefer to be out of it (and the International Criminal Court too) but I can accept it may be difficult and that there is other lower-hanging fruit.
But without a government that is prepared to act, none of it will matter.
Peter is right about the lack of power of the ECHR.
But.
The judiciary listens to ECHR decisions as though they were case law.
This may be why few cases are taken to them - judges refer to past, similar cases, that ECHR have reviewed and made decisions on.
Also the signatories to the GFA can refer cases there!
By leaving the ECHR, notice is given the UK will remove the power of organisations where Parliament has allowed itself to be spayed.
You make an interesting point about 'the British blob' for sure.
I suppose the question is...given how deep the malaise is, how are we going to get rid of the mass of judges, civil servants, police chiefs, university lecturers etc? And who are we going to replace them with?
Even if we repeal bad law the bad people prone to interpreting law as they see fit stay in place.
There's a cancer that needs removing from so many of our public institutions, the idea of leaving the EU/ECHR/NATO/whatever as a silver bullet is one for the birds.
Build new ones with new people in parallel. Pension off the old ones once the new ones are ready. It won't be easy but creating from scratch is easier than reforming.
the problem is they're going to come from the same system of Futher/Higher Education that's infested with the same mentality. The 'orthodoxy' is basically taught as fact and has been for what feels like eons. Shit in, shit out etc...
I agree that will need to abe avoided but it's quite possible. First favour those without degrees.
Second where the right people don't exist without a degree very carefully vet those who have one. I am sure there are many people who went through the system who hate it as much as those on the outside. The selection process needs to find those people.
Then ofc you need an 'auditing' system to check performance once in the job and rapidly remove any dodgy ones who slip through the net.
Repealing Tony Bliar's Human Rights legislation would be a step in the right direction.
As I recall, the only Article that it is not possible to derogate from, whilst remaining a member of the club, is Article 3.
All the UK needs to do, realistically, is give notice that they will be derogating from Article X, Y and Z and that is it.
The English Constitution Party took its case to the courts a few days ago.
The decision on whether ECPs case over the Runcorn & Helsby by election going forward depends on the two judges opinion - due in 2/3 weeks.
It was evident the judges ignored English law and were only interested in Human Rights laws as interpreted by the ECHR (the ECHR whose position in British law is advisory only).
This is how the judiciary work.
They have been educated in law based on a European model and for many the ultimate career success is being promoted to the ECHR.
That is why we need to leave the ECHR.
The judiciary needs to take heed of obligations still in place under English legal rights that have been pushed into the shadows.
The government needs to make plain we are leaving the ECHR and that they are irrelevant to our laws forcing them to refer to OUR legal system.
It was constructed over many hundreds of years and since joining the EU, ignored.
This "Europeanisation" of our law has fostered a fundamental change in law from something clear and objective to something fuzzy and subjective.
And when the law is fuzzy, it becomes a lever for partisan politics, ceasing to be tool for liberation and becoming one for oppression.
I agree. Never apologize, just do it. No groveling the UK is strong. Stand like it is.
I think you’re missing the point about leaving the ECHR. It’s used against us by phoney lefty lawyers and degenerates like Lord HawHaw (I mean Hermer). We need to leave to protect ourselves from ourselves.
Although you went around the houses reviewing the ECHR issue it was time well spent because it gives your conclusion more weight.
The bottom line, as you conclude, is our sovereign parliament just needs to kick some arse but the trouble is you need politicians with guts, knowledge and competence and in Pasha Glubb's Age of Decadence the quality of leaders is always piss poor.
"The thing for me, is that if you start talking about leaving all these conventions and treaties, then you tacitly admit they are supreme."
...
"You are stating that it is necessary for us to leave in order to restore British sovereignty."
...
I don't think anyone is stating that. This puts me in mind of the sophistical games Remainers played with the term "sovereignty" when we were in the EU, attaching a special and highly legalistic sense to the word when they knew full well what people meant when they talked about sovereignty. Thus they sniffily told us that being in the EU was no loss of sovereignty so what was the big deal?
Surely the bottom line is that if the ECHR and its local implementation in the UK's Human Rights Act prevent us dealing with urgent problems, we should be free to act to remedy those problems. That is what most people intend when they talk about sovereignty.
The first priority is to remove the Human Rights Act, or at a minimum those parts that stand in the way of effective action - which in this case means expelling illegal immigrants. If membership of the ECHR then manifests itself as an obstacle, then that needs dealing with too.
And if parliament is going to "act as it sees fit" then that means changing the law in order to make the measures government wishes to take possible.
What the government cannot do - and this is entirely reasonable - is break its own laws by its actions. So it needs to exercise sovereignty by changing the laws.
Underlying all of this is the fundamental fact that has been absent up to now, namely a government that actually wishes to act in the first place.
Don't need to leave ECHR/HRA. Just pass a Bill dealing with what you want, specifically overriding anything to the contrary ('notwithstanding' etc.) It is so easy to do that the failure of either Party to do it argues malicious intent.
This is the kind of thinking we need - assert Parliamentary sovereignty above all else and defund all arms of the state that have been compromised (most) but not before setting up clean parallel institutions - including a new judiciary. Pension off all the employees - if they are getting good money they will be too scared to kick up a fuss and jeopardise it - because their payments will be conditional on staying quiet and taking part in no political activity.
Agree Pete. Should have happened several years ago.
The problem is that if Starmer did this (ie grew a pair) he might get re-elected ! 🥲