Thread 30 Starmer - Magic Roundabouts

[DuncinToffee]

Pull up a chair for some friendly chit chat about politics and beyond

Taxes optional but greatly appreciated.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5395939-thread-29-starmer-paint-your-bandwagon?page=1

With a little help from our friends 🎶

Ok, Jack Straw is a lawyer. I’ll take his view on whether the UK government can amend an international treaty, not Diane Abbott. He was also responsible for incorporating the ECHR into the UK law and was Foreign Secretary and led on international treaty making. He is a position to give a proper legal opinion and she really is not.

Also do look at Denmark and how they have addressed immigration and asylum. Strikingly these changes were put in by a left wing government. And it has paid off electorally. Yvette Cooper will do this incrementally over the next couple of years - and it’s a tough narrative against an extreme right.

They would have to renegotiate an international treaty for safeguarding elements such as cross border security measures.

Don't forget that several times the British Army went into Ireland during 'the troubles' and caused an international outcry and embarrassment to Thatcher's government - deals had to be made.

I’ll take DAG’s opinion over Straws.

“entirely groundless"

This is how public discourse is being is being debased.

The GFA expressly requires access to court in Northern Ireland for ECHR.

But what Straw says is not tested, just repeated, and so a "both sides" "debate" is created.

The actualité drowns.

Sad to watch in real time.”

shame the media doesn’t necessarily reflect this.

Yes but in the end it’s an international treaty. And those are rewritten all the time. The UK Government can do this - getting a guarantor is not a blocker.

Also I do not think Thatchers government were ever embarrassed about it - I think she knew about it!

This international treaty needs agreement between the two countries - Ireland and Britain.

ETA. Thatcher's government didn't know because in one case, the unit commander had gone rogue.

But it’s a treaty. You can amend it. Jack Straw is not wrong, and there are number of other legal commentators who make the same point. They are not all steaming nationalists. They are pointing out what is possible. If you just said this agreement is forever and could never be changed that is plain wrong.

There is a difference as to the desirability of changing the GFA. Thats another matter. And I can see that people may not want it. Thats different. What I am saying is that the idea this is impossible is wrong. It might be difficult, but not impossible

Any amendments to the treaty would also require two referendums for agreement to the change. Why waste that time?

Yes. And it’s a negotiation. And governments and their motivations change all the time. The ECHR was a clear way to do this at the time. It is not the only way. You cannot unilaterally apply this to Ireland. But no one is suggesting that. It’s a bilateral agreement. But saying “this can never happen” is an error.

One of the more telling things about the whole ECHR kerfuffle has been the lack of suggestion (or even acknowledgement) from either side that it can be amended (as can any treaty). Even if that is now emerging, where was it 15 years ago ? When it suited David Cameron to throw a hissy fit, rather than start to seek amendments.

When you have an elephant in the room like that, you do ask yourself: Why ?

Written all the time by agreement.

Zia Yusuf and Dick Tice from Reform at a conference claiming they've found a way to make 6% savings in council costs. Something to do with local government pension funds but sky has just cut away from it

I'm more interested in this. I know nothing about how they've addressed immigration but will have a nosey.

The ECHR is a living treaty. It can be amended by its membership. In part that was because it was felt that the attitudes of say 1949 should not be the ones to govern it forever. But the converse is true. The progressivism of the ECHR can be changed too. Some rights are immutable. But others are not. States who are signatories can decide their own policies on those, and in the case of immigration or asylum, they do. They have just been quite liberal about it for 30 years.

If that changes, or you have a very extreme government waiting in the wings, centre governments look to make these kinds of changes. That is what is starting to happen in Denmark. They will not be the only government to do this. It looks like we are too. What is a right to a private life for example?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo

This is a good in depth article regarding the Danish approach.

What is a right to a private life for example?

The problem is people by and large are ignorant of the concepts of totalitarianism, fascism, nationalism and authoritarianism.

The reason you have the concept of a "private life" is because all the -isms above explicitly remove it and insist that everyone is a subject to the state. The state comes first and you can put "the family" in the bin as it will be families that get in the way of the Masterplan.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement but I can see how this might be attractive and play well with sections of the public.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/07/10/denmarks-left-defied-the-consensus-on-migration-has-it-worked

Even if the elements they wanted to suspend were nothing to do with security? Genuine question - it’s not something I know much about.

Will you stop giving me ear worms woman? 😂😂😂😂

Jack Straw might be a lawyer but he is wrong about the GFA not relying on the ECHR

Sorry. 😂

Steve Peers

Again - the reason that the Good Friday Agreement locks in the ECHR is that the UK had repeatedly been held accountable by the European Court of Human Rights for human rights breaches during the Troubles - while national courts had failed to do so, even upholding miscarriages of justice

I like the Joe Cocker version