egg

It sounds like an explanation will be wasted.

Here is a summary of the SC decision. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2023-0093-press-summary.pdf Where in that did the SC as the government wants? Absolute bollox to suggest that the SC is the government patsy and we need intervention from above. Sure, states relatively fresh out of the eastern bloc and/or with political judges may need some guidance, but we ain't that state.

With or without reform we're having a labour government with a huge majority. Sure, a bunch of racists and little englanders will waste their vote on them, but they will not have any impact on the outcome. The constant highlighting them is almost as annoying as the party itself.

Nonsense. The SC overruled the government on Rwanda, ruling the policy illegal. That's not a court doing as a government wants is it. If and when a person impacted by the bill/act challenges the decision, our courts will determine it and in doing so must consider their human rights. Absolute nonsense to suggest that the courts will do anything other than that.

I'm with Chez. Signing Macca on big cash, a first choice, with Baz to come back ain't happening imo. I'm assuming Lis and Lumley will back up whoever we sign as number 1 until they resume the Baz shit show.

Show me evidence of a campaigner from another party asking a voter to kill immigrants under his care, calling for junior soldiers to kill immigrants in the UK, in France, and in Bradford and I'll grant you equivalence.

At this stage?

.

Irish

That's a sad state of affairs - essentially allowing Trump another term in this climate for personal ambition in 2028.

I don't buy that. The USA has a population of 340m people. Amongst that lot there'll be a democrat more able than Biden.

Land

Old and past being president yes, senile no. Absolutely incredible that he's put up for a second term. He had a chance to put the boot into Trump last night but was just too decrepit to do so . The bit where his sentence tailed off and Trump said that he didn't know what he'd said and that Biden didn't know either, summed it up. He was an embarrassment, and having him in the running is pretty much giving Trump a free pass.

Looks like he's giving one for the team!

We need to deal with the reality, not the vague prospect of our independent judicial structure crumbling at some point in the future. Anyways, I promised to shut up so I will!

Then there is a detriment to them leaving, but no detriment when they're upgraded.

Who would stand at left back and cover RB if Bree and Manning went? As average as they are, we need them until we get others who are better.

No. It's an absurd allegation. The SC is independent of the government.

I've addressed the first point. As to the balance, we'll agree to differ. I am quite satisfied that we do not need international judges overseeing our judges decision making. We have tribunals, appellate tribunals, the high court for judicial review, then onto the court of appeal, then the supreme court if necessary. Those courts and their judges are independent of each other and any duff decisions will get proper scrutiny and a fair outcome irrespective of politics or outside interference. I'm not persuaded that necessarily applies in the ECHR, particularly post Brexit. I'll leave it there as this is a general election thread, and one thing we all seem to agree on, is this ain't happening anyway!

The issue is whether we leave. I've yet to hear how, in reality, British people will suffer any prejudice if we leave. Our laws are regulated by our judicial system. I'm not persuaded that we need what is essentially an international appeal court against decisions of our supreme court.

Odd. You'd imagine that Russia has builders and engineers who could do the job.

Knowing he'll do that basically gives his team a 2 goal start. Or something.

I doubt we have, it'll be a low base plus unachievable add ons to make it to 5 mil.

Fair point re the wider reach of the ECHR (court and convention) but it doesn't alter that we don't need to be part of that to have a) fair and just human rights and b) a fit for purpose judicial system to hold the state to account. I'm not calling to leave by the way, but I don't understand the flapping about the impact of doing so.

Why do we need a court above the Supreme Court? Our judges are independently and non politically appointed. They have shown countless times how they're willing to act against the government and it's various departments. We have decent human rights values and laws, a decent judicial system, and won't lose any of that if we exit the convention and court. Moreover, the notion that a court belonging to a club that we have left should exercise jurisdiction over us makes no sense in my opinion.