Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[PJL]

Could we be headed for another election in the next 6-7 months?

No chance. I'm not expecting another until the spring of 2024 at the earliest, and more likely the autumn of 2024. There was talk of a spring 2023 election being touted by the government but that is pie in the sky thinking now given that inflation will be up, interest rates will be up, unemployment will be up and millions will be in negative equity by then. So a 2024 election is more likely.

A more interesting question is will Boris last 6-7 months? If the upcoming by-election is really bad, it could see the men in suits talking to Boris to resign very soon (or at least an intention to resign very soon like in January). Otherwise, next year's local election results are critical. if there are heavy losses then, a challenge to Boris is highly likely. Regardless, all the senior cabinet ministers & contenders will be on a leadership election footing if they are not already.

[Tamas]

I am going to pull a Dorsey here but:

Sajid Javid says Omicron makes up 20% of cases in England

Why do I have to take a pre-flight test and a post-flight test then? 

[Tamas]

I guess he browses Languish while giving speeches

During his statement in the Commons Sajid Javid, the health secretary, said he wanted strict travel rules for people arriving in the UK eased given the spread of Omicron already in this country.

Labour's Ben Bradshaw called for the "very draconian, costly and complex" travel rules introduced only recently to try and stop Omicron arriving in the UK to be dropped.

Javid replied:

I think [Bradshaw] makes a very good point, given that we already know that the Omicron variant is fast becoming the dominant variant in our capital city, spreading rapidly throughout the country, the justification for having those rules is minimised.

It's something that I've already raised with my colleagues in the Department for Transport and I do hope that we can act quickly.

[Josquius]

I am going to pull a Dorsey here but:

Sajid Javid says Omicron makes up 20% of cases in England

Why do I have to take a pre-flight test and a post-flight test then? 

Those shares in testing companies weren't cheap.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on why people preferring anyone to Corbyn it's striking to see a key Corbyn aide who succeeded him as chair of Stop the War (they are very close on foreign policy) writing an article that says that it is "NATO that is trying to seize Ukraine" and, in any event, Ukraine's borders are "arbitrarily drawn, with no great significance." Admittedly he was formerly a member CPGB so it's to be expected (and there were reports that he's been banned from entering Ukraine because he has allegedly campaigned for solidarity with the Donetsk People's Republic etc). He would be in Downing Street right now.

I've always thought security/foreign policy were key in Corbyn's unravelling. People gave him a chance in 2017 and then his inability to say Russia was responsible for the Salisbury killings is when the polls immediately turned and never recovered for him. That combined with lots of Jews saying they were worried I think created a (correct) opinion that he's a bit of a wrong'un.

What I wouldn't give for a left that didn't have this type of nonsense going on

[The Larch]

Tweeted by the official Ryanair account. 

[Gups]

Incidentally on why people preferring anyone to Corbyn it's striking to see a key Corbyn aide who succeeded him as chair of Stop the War (they are very close on foreign policy) writing an article that says that it is "NATO that is trying to seize Ukraine" and, in any event, Ukraine's borders are "arbitrarily drawn, with no great significance." Admittedly he was formerly a member CPGB so it's to be expected (and there were reports that he's been banned from entering Ukraine because he has allegedly campaigned for solidarity with the Donetsk People's Republic etc). He would be in Downing Street right now.

I've always thought security/foreign policy were key in Corbyn's unravelling. People gave him a chance in 2017 and then his inability to say Russia was responsible for the Salisbury killings is when the polls immediately turned and never recovered for him. That combined with lots of Jews saying they were worried I think created a (correct) opinion that he's a bit of a wrong'un.

What I wouldn't give for a left that didn't have this type of nonsense going on

I don't reallly understand the hard left's continuing obeisance to Russia. It's not like it's still a left-wing country in any sense at all. Is it just a muscle memory or something? Or an enemy's enemy type thing?

[Josquius]

Yeah, I think it's generally a "if they oppose America they must be alright and everything else is just propeganda"

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I agree. I think their take is that the US is a hegemonic imperialist power - buttressed by the EU, NATO and countries like the UK, Australia or Japan etc. So if you are opposed to the US then you are by definition anti-imperialist and forces within countries who want to align with the "west" are basically doing the bidding of an imperialist system so cannot really represent that country's wishes or best interests.

They'd normally always caveat that by noting that obviously this doesn't mean Russia is good ("something, something gay rights") but should be supported in whatever it's doing in Europe or Syria. Same goes for China.

[Tamas]

Dominic Raab is to outline a sweeping overhaul of human rights law that he claims will counter "wokery and political correctness" and expedite the deportation of foreign criminals.

The highly controversial reforms, to be announced on Tuesday – which will create a new bill of rights – will introduce a permission stage to "deter spurious human rights claims" and change the balance between freedom of expression and privacy.

But lawyers described the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act as dangerous and fuelled by political rhetoric rather than necessity. They pointed out that the government has signalled its intentions before the independent review of the Human Rights Act, which is due to be published later on Tuesday.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said the intended reforms would allow judges to override rulings from the European court of human rights, rather than following them "blindly".

It claimed that as many as seven out of 10 successful human rights challenges were brought by foreign national offenders who cited a right to family life in the first instance when appealing against deportation orders – a practice it wants to end.

A senior MoJ source said the government felt strongly that free speech and democratic debate had been whittled away "whether by wokery or political correctness".

After the Mail on Sunday's failed appeal over its publication of a letter written by Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, to her estranged father, the source said common-law privacy laws had "come in by the back door" and that freedom of speech needed to be given "extra weight".

But Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, said any changes to the Human Rights Act should be led by evidence and not driven by political rhetoric.

She said: "British judges deliver British justice based on British laws, looking closely at how judgments fit into the national context, and disapplying them if there is good reason to do so. UK courts do not, as government suggests, 'blindly' follow case law from the European court of human rights.

"Equally, foreign criminals already can be deported in the public interest even where there are arguments against this from the right to family life. Every case is different, making it necessary to weigh each on its own particulars. Talk of restricting rights is dangerous and does not reflect the nuanced job the courts have to do."

The MoJ has highlighted the fight over prisoners' voting rights, and the requirement for police to issue "threat to life" notices – known as Osman warnings – to gang members as examples of unwelcome interference from Strasbourg.

Without explaining how, the MoJ said its plans would also reduce pull factors to the UK being exploited by people-smugglers facilitating dangerous small boat crossings. But it confirmed that the UK would remain a party to the European convention on human rights.

Martha Spurrier, director at Liberty, highlighted instances of the Human Rights Act helping people achieve justice, including LGBT military veterans getting their medals back after they were stripped of them because of their sexuality, and unmarried women receiving their widow's pension after the death of their partners.

She described the plans as "a blatant, unashamed power grab," adding: "Today's announcement is being cast as strengthening our rights when in fact, if this plan goes through, they will be fatally weakened. This government is systematically shutting down all avenues of accountability through a succession of rushed and oppressive bills. We must ensure the government changes course as a matter of urgency, before we very quickly find ourselves wondering where our fundamental human rights have gone."

Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International, said human rights are not "sweets" ministers can "pick and choose from" and the "aggressive" attempt to "roll-back" the laws needs to be stopped.

He added: "If ministers move ahead with plans to water down the Human Rights Act and override judgments with which they disagree, they risk aligning themselves with authoritarian regimes around the world."

Prof Philippe Sands QC, who sat on the 2013 commission on a bill of rights, said: "The concern is that this will mark a further step in the government's eager embrace of lawlessness, undermining the rights of all individuals, the effective role of British judges and the European court, and the devolution settlement into which the Human Rights Act is embedded."

Adam Wagner, a leading human rights barrister with Doughty Street chambers, said: "If this is to be a true bill of rights, instead of a party political rights wishlist, as this appears to be, the government should obtain cross-party support."

I know this makes me a pinko woke kind and sensitive person, but I don't think rewriting a definition of our human rights should be made with the driving force of fighting "wokery or political correctness".

[garbon]

The MoJ has highlighted the fight over prisoners' voting rights, and the requirement for police to issue "threat to life" notices – known as Osman warnings – to gang members as examples of unwelcome interference from Strasbourg.

I'm curious about this bit. How much "paperwork/time" do these notices entail?

And presumably the prisoners' voting rights involves thinking all prisoners should remain disenfranchised?

[Zanza]

Britain leaving the ECHR will by automatic operation of the treaty end most or all security cooperation with the continent as agreed in the TCA.

[Sheilbh]

Britain leaving the ECHR will by automatic operation of the treaty end most or all security cooperation with the continent as agreed in the TCA.

They're not leaving the ECHR. Raab's article on this acknowledges these reforms will probably result in more cases to Strasbourg.

I'm curious about this bit. How much "paperwork/time" do these notices entail?

This is from the consultation document obviously this relies on police evidence so...:

The cost of Threat to Life notifications (previously known as 'Osman warnings') has not been previously quantified, but the duty has added considerable complexity and expense to ongoing policing operations. Often intelligence about such threats will have been obtained as part of covert operations and the police will have to carefully consider the risks of using the information more widely.

146.  In 2019, the four biggest police forces in England issued between them 770 Threat to Life notifications, with these notifications having a considerable impact on police resource.93 At the lower end of the scale, management of a notification is likely to require the work of a small team of detectives, as well as the support of emergency response teams over a period of 48 hours to a week. This in itself places a significant burden on forces. However, the impact on resource can be much higher in some cases. As a result of violence between rival gangs in 2014-2015, Greater Manchester Police had two separate operations in train over a significant period of time, both of which needed to be staffed on a 24-hour basis over certain periods. One of these operations lasted 18 months, during which time the force issued 100 Threat to Life notifications.

147.  More recently, an urban police force reported running three Threat to Life operations, believed to relate to subjects involved in gang violence or with links to organised crime. All three cases centre around disputes over drugs or firearms. By the time these threats are managed and mitigated the force will have spent hundreds of hours of officer and specialist staff time.

148.  Given that, in such cases, substantial police time and effort is engaged in carrying out measures for serious criminals, this displaces the policing resources available for other serious crime perpetrated against law-abiding citizens, which inadvertently skews policing priorities.

149. Since those engaged in serious crime are disproportionately likely to face 'a real and immediate risk to life', they (rather than ordinary members of the public) are more likely to need the protective services required by the Osman ruling. One force reported that up to 75% of all Threat to Life notifications – required by the Osman ruling – may be issued to serious criminals or gangs. As a result of the straitjacket approach required by human rights case law, a substantial amount of police time is being diverted to provide witness protection to serious criminals. This inevitably displaces police resources allocated to protecting wider society and means that forces are constrained to act in a risk-averse way, taking measures to prevent costly litigation rather than spending resources on protecting the public.

And presumably the prisoners' voting rights involves thinking all prisoners should remain disenfranchised?

They're not proposing any changes on prisoner voting. It's referred to in the consultation. But basically prisoners who are in open prisons can vote.

I know this makes me a pinko woke kind and sensitive person, but I don't think rewriting a definition of our human rights should be made with the driving force of fighting "wokery or political correctness".

I'd say that it's probably worth applying the same level of cynicism about announcements like this and government spin as you'd apply to talk of leveling up We'll see - people are working through the consultation right now (and the supporting independent review of the HRA). There's a lot of open questions in the consultation around these points - the actually proposed amendments are, shall we say, not particularly significant

[Tamas]

They're not leaving the ECHR

They just seem to make legislation to ignore it.

[Zanza]

Britain leaving the ECHR will by automatic operation of the treaty end most or all security cooperation with the continent as agreed in the TCA.

They're not leaving the ECHR. Raab's article on this acknowledges these reforms will probably result in more cases to Strasbourg.

How is this different from the discussion we had on ECJ and German/Polish Constitutional Courts we had a while ago?