UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

[Clem Fandango]

The invasion of Iraq wasn't a zany mishap nor were dubya and Blair rogue leaders. Financially and literally devastating invasions are a normalised aspect of foreign policy as far as the state is concerned. It's very much possible that we'll all die in a war over the Senkaku Islands or whatever.

[Fonz]

Pretty much, yeah. I mean, motherf*cking Henry Kissinger is a free man, and Blair is only an entry-level imperialist compared to him. He'll be fine.

[CheesepuffScott]

Conservative leadership: May: 199 votes, Leadsom: 84 votes, Gove: 46 votes.

 

So we'll have a woman PM either way

Edited July 7, 2016 by irishfever1

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Gove gets the expected result of stabbing Boris in the back.

 

Serves him right if you ask me....

[CBH]

 

the coup attempt by the Blairites

We're not talking a handful of people here, we're talking four fifths of the parliamentary Labour party. I'm utterly perplexed why people insist on repeating this narrative; are we now saying that 80% of the Labour party are Blairites, including huge numbers of people who explicitly aren't? Or are they all unfortunate pawns in a game orchestrated by some faceless and so far nameless bastard?

 

You should stop acting like less than 200 people are more "The labour party" than the other 450,000.

 

although, I do like it when liberal wonks forget to pretend to support democracy.

Edited July 7, 2016 by CBH

[sivispacem]

You should stop acting like less than 200 people are more "The labour party" than the other 450,000.

It's pretty clear from the context I was referring to the parliamentary Labour party. That's all you can muster a reply to? How disappointing, but not very surprising.

[BRITLAND]

http://news.sky.com/story/eagle-to-challenge-corbyn-for-labour-leadership-10496779

 

Labour's Angela Eagle has said she will announce a bid for the party leadership on Monday morning.

It follows a period during which current leader Jeremy Corbyn has faced a series of resignations from his shadow ministerial team, and lost a vote of no confidence.

In a statement, Ms Eagle said: "I will explain my vision for the country and the difference a strong Labour Party can make."

Earlier on Saturday Labour's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said he had abandoned talks with union leaders to try to find a solution to the party's leadership crisis.

Ms Eagle said: "I want to thank Tom Watson and the union movement for trying to bring to find a solution to the impasse Labour faces with a Leader who has failed to fulfil his first and foremost duty, that is to lead an organised and effective Parliamentary Labour Party that can both hold the government to account and demonstrate we are ready to form a government in the event of a general election."

Mr Watson also issued a statement, in which he said: "Since the talks began Jeremy has publicly declared his intention to continue as leader come what may.

"This means there is no realistic prospect of reaching a compromise that satisfies the majority of colleagues in the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party).

Mr Corbyn, speaking at the Durham Miners' Gala, said: "Our union colleagues, who do a great deal to support the party want our party to come together to oppose what the Tories are doing.

"I urge all my colleagues to listen very carefully to them, and indeed come together to oppose what this government is doing to the most vulnerable within our society."

Announcing that she will announce her leadership bid on Monday

 

Eagle is hardly an improvement on Corbyn, I swear the PLP are trolling the public. She's not even the best out of the bad lot of rumored candidates (Eagle, Smith and Watson), Smith would of been the better pick, at least he seems like someone that could be a good opposition leader which is something the last two leaders have lacked and will keep Labour's left and right happy, but oh well.

Edited July 9, 2016 by BRITLAND

[Eutyphro]

Haha, that'll be fun.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-eagle-s-constituency-branch-issues-statement-supporting-jeremy-corbyn-as-labour-leader-a7124241.html

She doesn't even have support from her own constituency.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Eutyphro

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The Labour party will end up split, once and for all....

[sivispacem]

It would be hilarious if Corbyn was denied the ability to even run due to failing to get his 50 backers. It's full on car-crash TV at the moment.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

It would be hilarious if Corbyn was denied the ability to even run due to failing to get his 50 backers. It's full on car-crash TV at the moment.

It is still undecided if he could stand or not. It seems to be totally undefined in the rules of the party.

 

British politics as a whole right now is comedy, especially when satirical editors are appearing on Question Time and getting it bang on with rants....

 

Edited July 10, 2016 by Sikee Atric

[Svip]

Congratulations, Brits everywhere. Your next Prime Minister is Theresa May.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Woo, and indeed, hoo!

 

Leadsom shot herself in the foot at the weekend with 'that interview'.

 

So we have a new PM, time to see if 'Brexit' really means Brexit. I am still not 100% sure it will, nor will I be until it actually happens.

[Svip]

Well, how long before May becomes PM then? Perhaps this week?

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The end of next week will be the latest point.

 

Not that much will change in the interim since summer recess is coming fast upon the halls of Westminster. Things will only get properly moving after the Autumn Conference season....

[Svip]

Watching the BBC live feed on this event, it seems some are suggesting May could be Prime Minister today. I guess there is no legal or technical limit.

 

And now Tim Farron is calling for an early election. Maybe that Fixed Term Act was a mistake after all. Poor LibDems.

[sivispacem]

I kind of agree to be honest, though May is considerably better as an interim leader than any other option put forward. To be honest, I mostly want to see the outcome of an election for embattled Labour and how, if at all, the order if British politics has changed.

[Eutyphro]

It would be hilarious if Corbyn was denied the ability to even run due to failing to get his 50 backers.

 

Go ahead and laugh at the ultimate scenario of moral bankrupcy of your political system, where your MP's hate democracy so much they want to keep a man elected with an overwhelming member backing, who caused incredible membership increases, off the ballot. Where the MP's want to deny their members the choice because they favor someone who voted in favor of the Iraq war, has no charisma, no likeability, no popularity, and who will utterly fail. Great fun. Anyone who voted in favor of the Iraq war should immediately leave politics and be put on trial.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Eutyphro

[Argonaut]

If Leadsom, as it seems, pulled out because of the heat she got from her motherhood comments (if not this, then what else?) then I don't really think she would've had the tenacity to cope with future media issues regardless. Even if I wanted a more pro-Brexit PM (if it even matters when you've got two choices who will be forced to perform against the Referendum's result anyway), I still didn't feel onboard with her before this and would need the extra month running up to September to get enough to make any decision on.

 

This is all theoretical, however- if I didn't mentally 'support' Andrea then I would abstain from a vote because there's not a hope in hell I would support the architect of the Draft Communications Bill amongst other things, and by support I mean if I was 'forced' to make a decision; I'd never actively vote for either.

 

 

 

It would be hilarious if Corbyn was denied the ability to even run due to failing to get his 50 backers.

 

Go ahead and laugh at the ultimate scenario of moral bankrupcy of your political system, where your MP's hate democracy so much they want to keep a man elected with an overwhelming member backing, who caused incredible membership increases, off the ballot. Where the MP's want to deny their members the choice because they favor someone who voted in favor of the Iraq war, has no charisma, no likeability, no popularity, and who will utterly fail. Great fun. Anyone who voted in favor of the Iraq war should immediately leave politics and be put on trial.

 

 

Anyone who voted in favour, even if they've come to apologize and live with the decision they've made etc? I think your casting your net alittle too wide.

 

 

 

And in this current political climate, just why wouldn't this happen?

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Argonaut

[Eutyphro]

Anyone who voted in favour, even if they've come to apologize and live with the decision they've made etc? I think your casting your net alittle too wide.

Do the war criminals who happen to be our political adversaries get such mercy? Whether they regret it could be considered during trial.

[Raavi]

Watching the BBC live feed on this event, it seems some are suggesting May could be Prime Minister today. I guess there is no legal or technical limit.

 

Not quite today, but it's official now. Cameron will resign Wednesday, May will take over immediately.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36768148

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

If Leadsom, as it seems, pulled out because of the heat she got from her motherhood comments (if not this, then what else?) then I don't really think she would've had the tenacity to cope with future media issues regardless. Even if I wanted a more pro-Brexit PM (if it even matters when you've got two choices who will be forced to perform against the Referendum's result anyway), I still didn't feel onboard with her before this and would need the extra month running up to September to get enough to make any decision on.

Not being funny, but I suspect putting her foot in it wasn't the only reason she decided to quit.

 

I suspect she started to realize just how defining a poison chalice Brexit actually is. Especially since the new PM has to make it look like the UK will get the best end of the deal....

 

If we stay in the EU, the manifesto has failed. If we leave, the PM will be responsible for the breakup of the United Kingdom. Scotland will have a referendum for Independence and this time it will go through if it is the only way to stay in the EU. Once Scotland has gone, Wales and Northern Island will invariably be asking for the same level of Independence, even if they choose to leave the EU with England.

 

So May will fail either way as a PM and Leadsom figured it out, she didn't want to be the one responsible for reducing the role to just 'Prime Minister Of England' (especially since the economies will split and we will leave the G7 fairly sharpish), before it got messy. Now she can either choose a nice Ministerial seat (Brexit Minister looks possible) or quietly return to the back benches and await the May failure.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Sikee Atric

[sivispacem]

Go ahead and laugh at the ultimate scenario of moral bankrupcy of your political system

Oh hardly. If the Labour leadership system was actually democratic they wouldn't have a clause requiring people standing for leadership to seek the support of 51 MPs or MEPs before being going before the electorate.

 

your MP's hate democracy so much they want to keep a man elected with an overwhelming member backing, who caused incredible membership increases, off the ballot.

Except it's not the choice of the Labour MPs, it's the choice of the Labour Party's general council, who have so far received two entirely contradictory sets of advice on the subject. Regardless of the outcome, Labour will be destroyed as a political institution so I don't really care which way it goes. Just enjoy the irony of a Labour leader with such a strong grassroots mandate being utterly shafted by a process designed to make the leadership system more democratic.

 

Anyone who voted in favor of the Iraq war should...be put on trial.

Now this is just silly. A junior back bencher gets a three-line whip to vote a particular way based on misleading information does not have access to the raw intelligence behind that decision. There's little for them to critically evaluate. Besides, what would you put them on trial for? How have they broken the law?

[Eutyphro]

 

Anyone who voted in favor of the Iraq war should...be put on trial.

Now this is just silly. A junior back bencher gets a three-line whip to vote a particular way based on misleading information does not have access to the raw intelligence behind that decision. There's little for them to critically evaluate. Besides, what would you put them on trial for? How have they broken the law?

 

Minimally this: (for many of those involved more)

https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/336923D8-A6AD-40EC-AD7B-45BF9DE73D56/0/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

 

Article 8 bis74

Crime of aggression

Introduction

1. It is understood that any of the acts referred to in article 8 bis, paragraph 2, qualify as

an act of aggression.

2. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as

to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United

Nations.

3. The term “manifest” is an objective qualification.

4. There is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a legal evaluation as

to the “manifest” nature of the violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

Elements

1. The perpetrator planned, prepared, initiated or executed an act of aggression.

2. The perpetrator was a person75 in a position effectively to exercise control over or

to direct the political or military action of the State which committed the act of

aggression.

3. The act of aggression – the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty,

territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner

inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.

4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a

use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.

5. The act of aggression, by its character, gravity and scale, constituted a manifest

violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

6. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established such a

manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

 

Those who voted in favor of it didn't have less intelligence than UN secretary-general Kofi Annan who considered it in violation of the charter. Are you also against how we put back bench junior Nazi's on trial? Anyway, it is not up to me to decide who gets convicted. It isn't even up to me whether they get put on trial. I do think those who authorized the Iraq war should all be put on trial, and a judge at the ICC can decide the verdict. The Iraq war caused the deaths of between 600.000 and a million, or maybe over a million, deaths, and deaths and destability up to today are an effect of it. It is of great importance to society and human dignity a judge looks at these actions and all those involved.

[sivispacem]

Back-bench MPs are not individuals able to exercise control over the military or political aspects of a conflict.

 

Also, the Crime of Aggression wasn't signed into law until the 2010 amendments to the Rome Statute and does not come into force until the 1st January 2017. And isn't retrospective. And hasn't been ratified by the UK.

 

So no, they haven't broken the law according to the ICC.

[Eutyphro]

Nuremberg was retrospective, and so should this be. These laws were based on Nuremberg anyway, which is over 70 years old. This concerns the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Great Britain should sign it and it should be used retroactively. It's really shameful if like you say they haven't ratified it. Collaborating on the authorization of a war that is in violation of the UN charter and caused hundreds of thousands to a millon deaths and causing horror to this day should never be left unpunished. Leaving it unpunished is a major insult to international justice and human dignity.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

Great Britain should sign it and it should be used retroactively.

You should probably take that up with the UN, they're the ones who stipulated that it would only come into law on the first of January the year following it's 13th ratification.

 

It's also almost unheard of for legislation to be enacted retroactively, and good with reason because doing so is fundamentally idiotic. Nuremberg was an exception solely because no international judicial framework existed and because of the gravity of the atrocities committed, and to be honest drawing parallels between the two is pretty insulting.

 

It's really shameful if like you say they haven't ratified it.

Only thirty or so states have. I know it's in the process of being ratified in the UK.

 

Collaborating on the authorization of a war that is in violation of the UN charter

A parliamentary vote for a conflict is not collaboration. The assertion it is has no basis in law; no direct comparison with Nuremberg exists and the two are not analogous. If you can point to an example of any idivudual ever being charged with a war crime for voting in favour of a conflict then having no other input then please go ahead, but until that point it's simply a non sequitur.

[Eutyphro]

 

It's also almost unheard of for legislation to be enacted retroactively, and good with reason because doing so is fundamentally idiotic. Nuremberg was an exception solely because no international judicial framework existed and because of the gravity of the atrocities committed, and to be honest drawing parallels between the two is pretty insulting.

 

Because laws that were used 70 years ago to prosecute our enemies definitely shouldn't apply to us which would be 'retrospective' (technically it is, but considering the 70 year old Nuremberg laws it is ridiculous), and thinking they should apply to us is definitely 'insulting'. Completely insulting to ever consider that the laws we hold others liable to should apply to us as well.

 

In the second part of my post which was lost due to quote system complications, I considered 1984 Nicaragua vs USA, Blair being liable under the Geneva conventions and more. I also argued that parliamentary democracies are usually not the ones comitting war crimes, and the ones that do consider themselves above the law (like 1984 USA vs Nicaragua), as a response to you thinking holding parliament responsible is 'non sequitur'. That was the gist of it, but the quote system is behaving weirdly lately.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

Because laws that were used 70 years ago to prosecute our enemies definitely shouldn't apply to us

Technically there was no civilian legislative basis for the Nuremberg trials. They were conducted under military law, and even then did not have a clear legal basis, being orchestrated by nations who had already squirreled away some of the worst offenders because of the value of their scientific knowledge. The 70 year old "laws" have been replaced by the very legislation I've already highlighted.

[Eutyphro]

I completely get your argument. It's actually very sound and consistent. But it is due to deeply held moral conviction that I think parliaments involved should be held liable under War of Aggression as in Nuremberg, or Crime of Aggression as in the Rome Statute. There's no legal ground for that as of now, but I have moral reasons, and a few other reasons that I've mentioned, that I feel and think it should be the case because of how exceptionally grave it is. I'm not comparing the Iraq war to the Holocaust. That's nonsense. But I do think it is so exceptionally grave that the mentioned laws should apply. But this was interesting, so thanks anyway.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Eutyphro