General British politics discussion thread

Unfortunately, you're right. Starmer's fence-sitting is the strongest hand Labour can play - so long as their vision goes no further than the next election. Tories will do a clear-out, reset, and 5 years from now, Labour will be back in a two-way tie, and all the current Tory **** policies will be back on the table with a fresh coat of paint.

Labour have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shift the Overton window to the left, reversing a two-decades-old slide to the right. The Tories aren't getting re-elected no matter what Labour do, but instead of presenting a radical re-thinking of society and moving the discussion, they're going with "Labour: we're not as **** as the Tories" for fear of possibly offending anyone

Again what do you expect.

The idea that there is an argument for any sort of return or debate on Brexit is a fantasy that only exists in the minds of those viewing from afar.

Implementing Brexit better than the Tories and dealing with the EU and further a field as adults who understand the reality of the UKs position is the only tactic to play.

Chris Skidmore resigning. For once for something valguely honourable..

Skidmore's seat was Labour 92-10 so they'd likely get it back

The by-election will be on the existing boundaries.

that pic is of a sweedish football manager called erricksson

That's the joke... Bone played away from home, much like aul Sven, but Sven didn't try and install Nancy/Ulrika as the English manager after he left.

Conservatives whinge about sunak (and others) getting community notes added to their posts when they tell lies, Put up a post begging Musk to make it stop.

Post gets a community note 🤣🤣🤣

I was just wondering whether they mixed up barrister and barista..

On their current form, for rolling back ANY kind of meaningful commitment to ANYTHING, no chance.

I'm not starry-eyed about Labour in general, but I think the chances of this particular commitment being delivered are quite high. Almost everyone oppposes the Bill; it's one of the very few things that unites all five of the major political parties in NI, and it's also opposed by victims groups, survivors groups, relatives groups, human rights organisations, the Irish government, the US administration, and many voices in the EU and the UN. About the only groups that do not oppose it are the Conservative Party and British army veterans groups. If the Bill isn't repealed then the UK government (of whichever party) is going to have to defend at least one, and probably several, legal challenges in various international tribunals, with the attendant reputational damage.

Plus, it's a commitment that Labour has reiterated more than once over a period of several months, so there's a reputational cost to Labour in not delivering.

So this seems like a no-brainer. There's a considerable cost, domestically and internationally, to not delivering on this commitment, and minimal cost to delivering. The people most likely to be upset if Labour repeals the Act are largely people who wouldn't vote Labour in a fit anyway; the political cost of pissing off these people is negligible.

Didn't think an explanation of the word commitment was needed, but here we are.

What effect, if any, would Ireland winning it's case against the UK have?

Depends on how things pan out. There's a range of possible outcomes.

Last time round, when IRL took the UK to the court arguing that interrogation techniques used in NI constituted torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, it became apparent at a certain point that the case was not going well for the UK. (The parties to the case generally get a sense, from the questions the judges ask and from the issues they ask the parties to address, which way the court is leaning.) The UK then informed the court that it was no longer using the techniques, and gave an undertaking not to reintroduce them.

This meant that when, in due course, the court rules that the techniques did constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, it did not consider it necessary to make an order directing the UK not to use them. So the court's judgment was purely declaratory; there was no command addressed to the UK which the UK would have to either violate or comply with (either of which would have been problematic for the UK in different ways).

Especially as Labour has already committed to repeal the legislation, I'd expect something similar here. Odds are that the UK will repeal the legislation and then argue that this make the proceedings moot, and that the court does not need to rule at all. I doubt that argument will succeed, but it will at least avoid the possibility of the court directing the UK to repeal the legislation, or declaring the UK to be in breach of the Convention if it does not.

But, leaving aside the specifics of this case, in general how are judgments of the ECHR enforced? Enforcement is a matter for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is a body comprised of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the 46 member states of the Council. The Committee has the job of deciding what measures are necessary to give effect to a court judgment. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the particular breach, the appropriate measures could be almost anything — the payment of damages, the return of seized property, release of prisoners, changes in law or in policy or administrative practices. Hypothetically, if the UK hadn't already repealed the Act and the Court found that it violated the Convention, the Committee of Ministers could decide that the UK must either amend that Act so that it no longer violated the Convention or simply repeal the Act, and also to make whatever changes in policy and practice were necessary to ensure that investigating and prosecuting officers did not effectively treat members of the armed forces as having immunity from prosecution.

What happens if the a state fails or refuses to implement measures ordered by the Committee of Ministers? The Committee can look to member states to take appropriate action against the recalcitrant state — e.g. refusing to extradite people to the UK on the grounds that its investigative and prosecution systems did not meet the standards required by the Convention. Ultimately the recalcitrant state could be expelled from the Council of Europe (though, as in the case of Russia, a state can withdraw rather than face the ignominy of expulsion).

This is all very hypothetical. The UK has too much reputation and standing at stake ever to allow things to reach this pass. As already outlined, unless there's a coup d'etat and Nigel Farage has become Reichsfuhrer Grossbritannien, the UK would act to head off enforcement measures by repealing or amending the law before being forced to do so.

The throwing of British military veterans of the Troubles under a bus might cause an outcry in Britain. As for the making of promises by a Labour opposition leader, Tony Blair promised that he would renationalise Britain's railways .....