1) The significance of law and advice. The law MUST be followed. Advice is just advice. But if you explicitly put “common sense” before advice, I’m not sure how meaningful giving advice still is. We need a clear distinction and approach.
2) Devolution, decentralisation and centralisation. My first reaction to some of the questions is “it is unfair to ask the PM about rules in all sorts of areas”. But that’s actually only true once we define clearly who does what.
The fact that it feels weird to ask those questions just shows that it is problematic to centralise. We need a clear model for decentralisation. What would this then look like?
The PM could then answer to a question like that “we have agreed on countrywide incidence rates requiring further measures. Where those incidence rates are met, local councils have to impose further measures. The measures are available at a central website.
(Thanks to the great clerks in Parliament, such a website actually exists).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know some will brush off @RishiSunak 's comments on the ECtHR and the ECHR as irrelevant given that his days in office are almost over. They are not. They are dangerous for the UK and show some politicians have not learned a thing. Why? /1
First: Once again a UK leader makes a commitment to leave an international system to limit immigration without any regard to the impact of leaving. That impact? /2
The UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR. The agreement is at the core of the Council of Europe, underlies the good Friday agreement and the TCA. Leaving it means the UK leaves the CoE, destroys the Belfast Agreement and ultimately terminates significant chunks of the TCA. /3
Sorry to emphasize this again, but please note the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" aspect of the case, which weirdly is often left out of commentary on the ICJ case. It is incredibly important. /1
South Africa submitted numerous statements that show that a cavalier attitude has developed to say truly horrendous things. Now that does not equal showing a state policy of genocide. But it is deeply troubling. And the court decided to remind Israel of what needs to be done /2
And the order of the Court in this regard is all the more stronger by who voted for it: Also Israel's ad hoc judge Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. /3
Some thoughts on the South Africa-Israel case before the ICJ, as I am unhappy with some comments. I’ll try to keep this untechnical. /1
1) South Africa files the case as a state party to the genocide convention against Israel as another state party alleging violations of the convention. This is permissible, as every state party is held to have an interest in upholding the convention.
2) This is not the first time that this has happened. The Gambia has filed a case concerning genocide against Myanmar. If you are interested… icj-cij.org/case/178
Ofcom has published a list of swearwords by degree of offensiveness, which really is a f****** great service for non-native speakers. So here it is (thread)