James York: The Truth on Chagos? We need an off ramp, fast
How is this acceptable?
James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry.
Nothing is more pressing in our national politics right now than the plight of the absurd, inconceivable, illogical, baffling and frankly suspicious Chagos Islands “deal”. We must find Sir Keir (Sucker?) Starmer an off ramp. A democracy that treats non-binding advice as binding, perpetuates the conversion of sovereignty into ritual.
Trumps acquiescence was caveated by the admission he’d use force to protect his interests. Did you catch the deep breath of irony? It was negating by its nature! Loathe, respect or love Trump – it’s pretty evident that he is playing the game of international relations poker as a realist.
He knows it’s all about power, but one fears our “regulation oriented” barristercrats don’t. They quietly rock, mumbling about “international law”, whilst power across the world does what it wants until it meets the equal and opposing force of other power. There’s really only two states that matter right now.
We all know, in Texas Holdem’ terms, this Chagos move is quit literally “a flop” of bad, bad cards, and very expensive “blinds”!
Let’s take a stock check of why we’re doing this Chagos deal. Firstly, there’s “legal” obligation. It doesn’t take a barristercratic Cambridge alum to spot that the “ruling” behind which Starmer hides is merely advisory.
If the police “advised” you to pay a fine, you might think it in your best interests to, thus avoiding future ire. But if your neighbour did because a bamboo plant had snuck under their fence. Would you? Well, only would if their demand was backed by, say, those police. But the world has no such police force. No state is bound by anything but power. It’s a long-standing thing we call sovereignty. It’s telling that so many on the left scoff at the word.
This ruling is the equivalent of a neighbour demanding compensation, with no police force to enforce it if you don’t comply. Just the dirty looks of other neighbours – many of whom have their skeletons in the windows and feral kids hacking your wifi.
Are you seriously going to change their future behaviour just by “doing the right thing”?
Equivalently, are we noticing British actions being ruled upon by a Chinese and a Russian judge? Something about it doesn’t track. Roughly 50 per cent of the ICJ advisory ruling’s judges could be considered as originating from democracies! This is not an outright accusation of bad faith. Rather, a recognition of the potential that legal cultures formed in non-democratic systems cannot help but interpret consent, legitimacy, and the actions of ideological counterparts differently.
There is the question of personal conflicts of interest, too. Whether or not any impropriety exists is not …
How is this acceptable?
James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry.
Nothing is more pressing in our national politics right now than the plight of the absurd, inconceivable, illogical, baffling and frankly suspicious Chagos Islands “deal”. We must find Sir Keir (Sucker?) Starmer an off ramp. A democracy that treats non-binding advice as binding, perpetuates the conversion of sovereignty into ritual.
Trumps acquiescence was caveated by the admission he’d use force to protect his interests. Did you catch the deep breath of irony? It was negating by its nature! Loathe, respect or love Trump – it’s pretty evident that he is playing the game of international relations poker as a realist.
He knows it’s all about power, but one fears our “regulation oriented” barristercrats don’t. They quietly rock, mumbling about “international law”, whilst power across the world does what it wants until it meets the equal and opposing force of other power. There’s really only two states that matter right now.
We all know, in Texas Holdem’ terms, this Chagos move is quit literally “a flop” of bad, bad cards, and very expensive “blinds”!
Let’s take a stock check of why we’re doing this Chagos deal. Firstly, there’s “legal” obligation. It doesn’t take a barristercratic Cambridge alum to spot that the “ruling” behind which Starmer hides is merely advisory.
If the police “advised” you to pay a fine, you might think it in your best interests to, thus avoiding future ire. But if your neighbour did because a bamboo plant had snuck under their fence. Would you? Well, only would if their demand was backed by, say, those police. But the world has no such police force. No state is bound by anything but power. It’s a long-standing thing we call sovereignty. It’s telling that so many on the left scoff at the word.
This ruling is the equivalent of a neighbour demanding compensation, with no police force to enforce it if you don’t comply. Just the dirty looks of other neighbours – many of whom have their skeletons in the windows and feral kids hacking your wifi.
Are you seriously going to change their future behaviour just by “doing the right thing”?
Equivalently, are we noticing British actions being ruled upon by a Chinese and a Russian judge? Something about it doesn’t track. Roughly 50 per cent of the ICJ advisory ruling’s judges could be considered as originating from democracies! This is not an outright accusation of bad faith. Rather, a recognition of the potential that legal cultures formed in non-democratic systems cannot help but interpret consent, legitimacy, and the actions of ideological counterparts differently.
There is the question of personal conflicts of interest, too. Whether or not any impropriety exists is not …
James York: The Truth on Chagos? We need an off ramp, fast
How is this acceptable?
James York is a member of the Beaconsfield Conservative Association and a policymaker in the insurance industry.
Nothing is more pressing in our national politics right now than the plight of the absurd, inconceivable, illogical, baffling and frankly suspicious Chagos Islands “deal”. We must find Sir Keir (Sucker?) Starmer an off ramp. A democracy that treats non-binding advice as binding, perpetuates the conversion of sovereignty into ritual.
Trumps acquiescence was caveated by the admission he’d use force to protect his interests. Did you catch the deep breath of irony? It was negating by its nature! Loathe, respect or love Trump – it’s pretty evident that he is playing the game of international relations poker as a realist.
He knows it’s all about power, but one fears our “regulation oriented” barristercrats don’t. They quietly rock, mumbling about “international law”, whilst power across the world does what it wants until it meets the equal and opposing force of other power. There’s really only two states that matter right now.
We all know, in Texas Holdem’ terms, this Chagos move is quit literally “a flop” of bad, bad cards, and very expensive “blinds”!
Let’s take a stock check of why we’re doing this Chagos deal. Firstly, there’s “legal” obligation. It doesn’t take a barristercratic Cambridge alum to spot that the “ruling” behind which Starmer hides is merely advisory.
If the police “advised” you to pay a fine, you might think it in your best interests to, thus avoiding future ire. But if your neighbour did because a bamboo plant had snuck under their fence. Would you? Well, only would if their demand was backed by, say, those police. But the world has no such police force. No state is bound by anything but power. It’s a long-standing thing we call sovereignty. It’s telling that so many on the left scoff at the word.
This ruling is the equivalent of a neighbour demanding compensation, with no police force to enforce it if you don’t comply. Just the dirty looks of other neighbours – many of whom have their skeletons in the windows and feral kids hacking your wifi.
Are you seriously going to change their future behaviour just by “doing the right thing”?
Equivalently, are we noticing British actions being ruled upon by a Chinese and a Russian judge? Something about it doesn’t track. Roughly 50 per cent of the ICJ advisory ruling’s judges could be considered as originating from democracies! This is not an outright accusation of bad faith. Rather, a recognition of the potential that legal cultures formed in non-democratic systems cannot help but interpret consent, legitimacy, and the actions of ideological counterparts differently.
There is the question of personal conflicts of interest, too. Whether or not any impropriety exists is not …
