Blog

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /hermes/bosnaweb04a/b421/whl.politeiaweb2/new/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 34.

'Neither Compelling, nor Attractive'

'Neither Compelling, nor Attractive'   

 

 Image result for chilcot enquiry

 

Friday 8th July: As the advice to invade Iraq comes under the spotlight with Sir John Chilcot's report, Professor Peter Crisp assesses the evidence on the legality of the decision: 

 

Chapter 5 of Sir John Chilcot’s caustic report on the Iraq Inquiry analyses and discusses the legal basis for the Iraq war. The chapter gives extraordinary and unprecedented insight into the legal process which led to the decision to invade Iraq as well as a remarkably detailed account of how the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, came to change his mind on the legality of a possible conflict and, in his words, to give the “green light” to the invasion.

 

In an example of English understatement at its most lethal, Chilcot in his 6 July statement writes:

 

“…the Inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal. That could, of course, only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised Court. We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.”

Allies of a Kind? Britain's Departure from the EU spells uncertainty for the Franco-German Axis

Allies of a Kind?

Britain's Departure from the EU spells uncertainty for the Franco-German Axis

Friday 1st July: As EU member states respond to Britain's decision to leave the EU, Professor John Keiger assesses the response in France and its implications.

The French have a lot on their plate at present. But that has not stopped their knee-jerk reaction to the triumph of the ‘Leave’ campaigners in Britain’s referendum result of 23 June. Despite the on-going state of emergency following two large terrorist attacks in the course of this year, the informal opening of campaigning for presidential and legislative elections in April-May 2017, the divisions in the ruling socialist majority and the main centre-right opposition republican party about the choice of candidate for the presidentials, widespread trade union and popular opposition to a government bill to liberalise workplace laws, national strikes, violent popular demonstrations, the rise and rise of the Front Nationaland Marine Le Pen, a President at twelve per cent in the latest opinion polls, an economy in the doldrums, not to mention a rowdy Euro football tournament to organise, France has managed to froth volumes at Britain’s likely departure from the EU. But what is most important is what has not been said thus far.

Freedom Not Fantasy

Freedom Not Fantasy
 
Friday 24th June: As Britain votes to leave the EU, Politeia’s Director, Sheila Lawlor explains why we should trust the people.
 
This week, with the highest turnout at the polls for decades, British people decided to leave the EU. Despite the threats of dire consequences, the menace over months from a battery of big guns at home and abroad, people in this country did what they have always done. They thought about the issues, they thought about the evidence and, on the biggest decision faced by the country in their lifetime, they made up their own minds. Turning out in their millions to the polling booths, they voted to restore their ancient freedom, the birthright which has marked this country out from others. They voted for the right to make the laws under which they are governed, to hold their rulers to account and get rid of them when they get things wrong.
 
Across the portals of power that decision has not been understood, by many in politics and across Whitehall, by big business and the banks, by conglomerates and international institutions. Indeed, they had not hesitated to use official power, and the resources and bureaucracies of state against the cause championed by those they seek to rule. Instead of recognising this instinct for freedom, which marked this country’s political identity and evolution over the last millenium, there has been incomprehension.

Common Law and Common Sense

Common Law and Common Sense
Legal Dynamics, Prosperity and Britain's Future
 

As the country joins her family in mourning the tragic killing of one of our most likeable and promising Parliamentarians, the proper suspension of the debate upon European Union membership has given all an opportunity to reflect upon the quality and conduct of the argument on one of the great issues of our time. 

When polling eventually takes place on Brexit on June 23rd, most people will be relieved that important issues for the country have been exhaustively considered, though concerned that on some occasions the rules of civilised democratic behaviour and debate forgotten. Like me, some will feel saddened that John Major, in whose administration I served, recently marred his reputation, by resorting to personalised, even vindictive attacks on the Vote Leave Team, in a way out of keeping with his stewardship of Britain's highest office.

As we return our focus to the final week of the Brexit debate, I pose three questions.

First, is the European Union now or in the future, compatible with how we do things in Britain?  In two crucial ways, it plainly isn’t.

Equal Treatment before the Law, Mr Hancock!

Equal Treatment before the Law, Mr Hancock!
Social Engineering has no place in the Labour Market.
 
Syndicate content