Very very excited to see this out!
Always ask yourself, what would Lord Diplock think? https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/
8,460 followers 650 following 4,878 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Very very excited to see this out!
Zack Polanski here opposing building on the green belt, and supporting watering down the Planning Bill. Left populism looks weirdly like the status quo!
Starmer must envy that kind of big, natural support
Alas, I had lumped you in with the usual suspects who think there is no argument to be had. I apologise.
It is also "abundantly clear" that there have been lots of public lawyers making the opposite claim, usually supported by no more analysis than the number of times the ECHR is referred to in the GFA.
That is the political issue, which is of course separate from the meaning of the agreement itself.
I am surprised to hear you concede that there are "arguments to be made on both sides." That really isn't the reaction of most public lawyers, at least on here, which is one of outrage. /ends
"there is a good arguable case that the GFA permits the UK to leave the ECHR" spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2024/11/18/t... It isn't me who is being absolutist, and my central point is about the text of 5(b) and what it says. /1
Burn the heretic.
Well, I had thought that in 1998 the Irish government might be concerned to spell out things carefully in an agreement settling 30 years of conflict, but if you tell me they thought they didn't need to because they trusted the British, I am in no position to gainsay your expertise.
So, to be clear, your claim is that we shouldn't read the words of the GFA, as we do a regular treaty, because Ahern trusted Blair going forward, and didn't need to be clear in the text settiling 30 years of violenece, whereas by 2021 trust had gone and clarity was then needed? Oh indeed.
The claim that the Irish government in 1998 were happy to trust the UK government going forward, and so didn't need to spell things out clearly in an agreement that tried to settle 30 years of conflict, is a bold submission.
The idea that in 1998 the Irish government didn't need to spell things out because the UK government was considered a great bunch of lads, so they could be slapdash with the drafting, when by 2021 they were evil swine, is just silly. In 1998 the UK leaving the ECHR wasn't foreseen. In 2021 it was.
I wonder if we asked the other 26 whether they'd agree.
You think it was the Irish government of the 27 that insisted on that drafting because the UK had breached prior agreements? Which ones are you thinking of? Rather more plausible in my view that in 2021 the prospect of the UK leaving the ECHR was in view, when it was not in 1998.
True. And I doubt Trump is a fan of the ECHR. But who knows with this administration?
Welcome to the leper colony.
I have no problem with the VCLT (that is law too). What I have a problem with is your view of what "purpose" in art 31 entails. That view undermines international law as law: a Bad Thing. A Bad Thing because international law *is* law, not because it isn't. You've not followed the argument.
No. You were making I recall a normative claim about how we should interpret international law. My response was about how that view undermines international law as law, and should be deprecated. ie my view was and is predicated on it being law.
What your quoting says the exact opposite of what you claimed I'd said You'll notice that I am saying that international law *is* law and that it is unfortunate if it is undermined qua law, and we should deprecate that. Happy that misunderstanding has been cleared up.
Indeed. Have a read of the Good Friday Agreement.
Of course they do, don't be foolish.
You'll notice 1. You've omitted the heading 2. The ellipses completely change the meaning. You're not a serious person.
So, for example, the words you've quoted do not say the UK shall " incorporate the ECHR into NI law with access to courts and remedies." You have to, you know, read them.
Yes. I have read, and written about that. As Lord Goff said, a crumb of analysis is worth a loaf of assertion. Notice for example the heading and opening words of cl 5 that you've omitted. spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2024/11/18/t...
Question. Is Barrett still a thing? I've not come across him in ages, not since his chambers asked him to leave. I feel a bit sorry for him. Not much, but a bit.
You're round the corner from me.
(I agree that the endless chastising of Twitter users can occasionally get grating but lol at the somehow many people going "oh I only use it to post links to my work now", like "oh I'm actively trying to profit from the fascism site" is meaningfully better than "I'm on the fascism site for fun")
5(c) is referring to what became HRA s 3 , and I'd interpret 5 (b) as being what became HRA s 6. I don't see the tension. It isn't about the ECHR itself.
You mean in the same way that they passionately cared (and care) about the creation of a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights?
All that is no doubt true. But I don't think anyone in 1998 had in contemplation that the UK would leave the ECHR, but they did in 2021, which is why the terms of the agreements are so obviously different.
I'd have thought it arguable that "Democratic Institutions in Northern Ireland" in 5, including 5(b), includes the police and other pre-existing institutions. But it also isn't right, imo, that 5 (or 5(b)) refers to the United Kingdom, the state, as being subject to those constraints.
The claim is not that the incorporation of the ECHR was not important. 5(b) is there for a reason. The claim is that people are sloppily not reading what 5(b) in the context of paragraph 5 actually says.
Well, that of course is premised on the words "the UK undertakes to be a party to the ECHR" or equivalent, expressly or impliedly, appearing. 5(b), the important bit, doesn't say that. Nor does it say what GP claimed it does in the first post, or anything like it.
Would have. Should have. Could have.
No doubt all true. Which leaves why, if the parties really had thought about it as you claim, the wording is so very different from the crystal clear EU-UK Trade and Co-op Agreement.
Indeed. So badly drafted. Such a shame. I do think however we should look at the words of 5(b) in context, and not what the parties should have agreed if they'd thought about it.
Fwiiw, I wrote about the usual argument people make about why international law isn't law here spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/s... I suspect you must be misremembering.
Did I? Perhaps you could provide me with a reference. I can point you at several blog posts saying the exact opposite of you like.
Which interpretive norm are you claiming I've not understood, or is important here so as to impact the meaning of 5(b) (by far the most important provision)?
Who has said it isn't law? It isn't posited by authority, the primary source is agreement between states, and it is states (not you, me or the institutions of NI) that are subject to it.
This is just loose. You have to look at the words. The important part is 5(b). Most of the analysis doesn't get beyond counting the number of times the ECHR is referred to. As if people don't want to believe the words used.
Presumably Blair and Ahern are the "bad leaders " then for failing to draft the GFA in the way the UK-EU Trade and Co-Op Agreement was.
And "Democratic Institutions of NI" and not "UK". The text really does not say "The ECHR shall apply [in or to] NI" as you want it to do.
Indeed there was. But there was nobody who thought there was any prospect of the UK leaving the ECHR. Because, at the time, there wasn't. Which is why in 2021 the Trade and Co-Op Agreement looks so different.
I think your argument then should be with the people responsible for the drafting of the GFA. Shockingly bad if they really did have this concern in their minds. Why not draft it like the UK-EU Trade and Co-Op Agreement?
Indeed *why* would they have done that? in 1998 the concern that the UK would leave the ECHR wasn't a cloud as large as a man's hand. Nobody at all thought that possible. Compare the completely differently drafted UK-EU Trade Co-Op Agreement.
Why would anyone care about that? The deal is what was agreed, which is contained in the meaning of the words used in their context. What the individuals thought as a matter of psycholigical fact or they would have said if asked about this situati is just irrelevant. No?
But, of course, what the parties would have said at the time if you'd asked them just isn;t the same as the meaning of the words they actually agreed, so that doesn't really matter.
Did they? The Blair government wanted to bring in the HRA, and this could be added in as part of the deal without it costing anyone anything. I doubt the Irish government gave a fig about it, but it was cosmetically attractive.
The text could indeed have said "the international law safeguard of the ECHR shall remain in play, and particular provisions shall be incorporated to apply to democratic institutions in NI." But, it just didn't.
No. The ECHR applies and can only apply to the UK (and other signatory states). That isn't a peculiar English constitutional view, it is the way international law works.
To the contrary, my entire career is built upon arguing that they've made terrible mistakes and are to blame for everything. You should read the thing i wrote about Pollock.
Look at the rest of the list. Look at the heading ("Democratic Institutions in Northern Ireland"), Look at the text of 5(b) ("which neither the Assembly or public bodies can infringe, together with a human rights commission" . It is about the law to be applied to the institutions in NI.
Which part of the GFA are you saying says, expressly or otherwise: "the ECHR shall be incorporated into NI law." That isn't, for example, what 5(b) says at all.
No. Ihat misrepresents Ekins. Para 5 in general and 5(b) in particular of the GFA applies to the democratic institutions of NI (see heading and text). It doesn't refer to the UK or UK legislation. NI institutions are not responsible for immigration to the UK (or NI specifically).
But, as a matter of law, wheat the parties would have agreed if they had contemplated the problem, just is not the same as what they did in fact agree. /ends
The argument against Ekins is not that he's getting the text wrong, he just isn't. It is that if we look at the text in context and ask what the parties would have meant if they had contemplated the current situation, what would they have agreed. /5
The problem is that the parties when drafting the GFA just never thought about this problem. Which is why the UK-EU Trade and Co-Operation Agreement is drafted completely differently. /4
I agree that *politically* what matters is that Ireland and the US won't accept Ekins' interpretation. But he is no fool. The words of the GFA do not support the lazy assumption that they require the UK to be a party to the ECHR. /3
"Dualism" isn't some peculiar English constitutional thing. It is the way international and domestic legal orders work. Everywhere, in all times and places. /2
"There will be..." Everything in the list of paragraph 5 refers to things that were to happen. The UK was already a party to the ECHR. 5(b) specifically is also not referring to the ECHR but its incorporation into domestic law "which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe." /1
People curate big followings and don't want to give them up. A former colleague of mine with a large twitter following, obtained that by posting what seemed to me platitudinous progressive guff. (Racism is bad. Yes indeed it is). But they're still there, as if it weren't a vehicle for a fascist.
I dobut people behave very differently on bluesky compared to any other social media platform. There are too many people to make generalisations. This is just the way people are. More of the hottest takes as we get them.
If I were trying to win elections and arguments, I simply would be doing everything I could to move UK political conversation away from a website run by an avowed enemy who believes and writes this stuff about me:
It was a overwhelmingly a product of the Soviet Union and is a Russian phrase: соцреализм, sotsrealizm .
I cycle passed every day. Honest review?
That is what the art style is called. It isn't my choice.
The ironic triumph of socialist realism.
But the wider point is that even if Trump wins before SCOTUS, this has to just go back to trial. And he'll lose, and back up it will go. /ends
Now, to me, that is unpersuasive. The administration hasn't tried to give any account of the unusual and extraordinary threat to national security that could justify tariffs (because, obviously, there isn't one.) /3
Trump only has authority under the IEEPA to where there is an unusual and extraordinar threat to national security. The minority want to say that that can't be determined on summary judgment: ie this will need a full blown trial. /2
On the legality of Trump's tariffs, the minority dissents are the most interesting, as they indicate how the conservative majority can side for Trump before SCOTUS. See p 65 and following. /1 www.nytimes.com/interactive/... www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
And who would be to blame for that? [This is a nice case about whether the US courts accept the law as posited in plain language. ie is law law. Journalists: this isn't difficult, read the text of the various enactments.]
Appalling that Policy Exchange’s offices were violently attacked last night - just the latest in a lengthy series of such intimidatory attacks targeted at think tanks and campaign groups, doing perfectly legitimate work that is part of our democratic process.
On where UK Bluesky does have a blind spot, I haven’t seen anything on here about the vandalism of Policy Exchange’s office (see below). This kind of stuff should be called out and criticised and I’m very happy to do so.
The same quote also misunderstands why Parliament couldn't abolish judicial review either which isn't as he seems to think a judge made common law rule either (but the conceptual reason Parliament can't abolish it is rather different from Parliament's inability to abolish Parliamentary sovereignty).
If it were a judge made rule, Parliament (or indeed the UKSC) could abolish it. it isn't. It is part of our rule of recognition: it isn't posited by authority at all. The Steyn quote your approving, misunderstand the basis of it. /1
Another classic from this Trump supporting imbecile who broadcasts for the BBC.
If you just look at the data (jobs, GDP, inflation etc) the US looks fine, a small amount of slowing only. So, if you only follow politics in a semi-interested way, you won't panic. (And I think the tariffs, other than steel, are all unlawful and the courts will agree). One ship must come in.
Mildly obsessed now, having not followed it closely, with what has gone wrong. Watched this podcast, with Neville and Keane, from yestrday, where Keane jokes about Utd beating Grimsby. To which Neville nervously responds.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ccF...
This is in Shakespeare. Human nature to be systematically over optimistic. Why did Antonio promise the pound of flesh as a penalty for not being able to repay? Because he had three ships at sea, and if any one of them came in he'd be fine. They all sank.
I'm so glad someone wrote this. @henrymance.ft.com on the stalled vegan revolution: www.ft.com/content/866a...
Lucky tax incidence isn't a thing. www.theguardian.com/money/2025/a...
The thinking wasn't done beforehand. It was obvious this is where we'd be in 2023.
The penny wise pound foolish approach to finance (sacking dinner ladies). Needs a proper FT look at I think. This is a major UK business being mismanaged. /Ends
The decision making of Radcliffe seems diabolical. The retaining then sacking of ETH. The hiring and firing of Ashworth. The hiring of the inflexible relatively inexperienced Amorim. The loss of value on players (Sancho, Anthony, Rashford). And that is before looking at results /1
Sorry for typos. Am on phone.
All clubs make mistakes of course, but this seems to be a long pattern of bad decisions. /Ends
There are of course thousands of pieces on United, but I'm more interested in a long form piece on the decision making of Radcliffe, which seems diabolical on its face. /2
The Grimsby match, which I thoroughly enjoyed, made me read Unites. Is there a good behind the scenes account of the decisions to retIn, and sack, ETH, and hire then sack Ashworth, the fallout with Sancho and Rashid, and to hire the inflexible disliked Amorim? /1
Two Ruben Amorim stats learned from rubbernecking Man United fan discussions: - he is yet to win back-to-back Premier League games. - his win-rate is worse than Gary Neville at Valencia.
This is killing me, hahahahaha
You have to admire someone sticking to their principles, through thin and thin.
lol. That has to smart.
Grimsby has a population around the size of Old Trafford's capacity. (Should be 3-0)
"Talented player, but can he do it on a wet night in Grimsby?"
Oh Sting, where is thy death?
That first Grimsby goal is a beauty. The second. My God.
Just seen the Man Utd score.
