Sabitlenmiş Tweet
No one should ever claim the EU is not malign after reading this.
judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subs…
English
Stuart M
6.5K posts
Stuart M
@StuartM1827017
New Zealander in exile
Mars is nice this time of year Katılım Ağustos 2024
609 Takip Edilen132 Takipçiler
Stuart M retweetledi
"That is not current law and cannot be enforced under any framework that currently exists. Jenrick said so accurately and was rebuked for it."
This is Reforms weakness in a nutshell, lack of detailed planning from first principles and god forbid anyone show them up on it.
On Farage's prior performance, that's probably Jenrick's last warning.
English
The derogation point is technically correct. Under Article 15 of the ECHR, a state can suspend certain Convention rights in time of war or public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Britain has done it twice: during the Northern Ireland troubles in the 1970s and after 9/11 in 2001. The precedent exists.
But the conditions are strict. The derogation must be limited to what is strictly required by the emergency. It cannot suspend Articles 2, 3 or 4. And crucially, the European Court of Human Rights retains the authority to assess whether a genuine public emergency exists and whether the measures taken are proportionate to it. A Home Secretary declaring a migration emergency and suspending Article 8 rights to enable mass deportation would face immediate challenge in Strasbourg and the domestic courts. Whether it would survive that challenge is genuinely uncertain.
And it's worth returning to where this started. My original post was not about whether Britain should leave the ECHR, whether derogation is possible or whether Parliament is sovereign. It was about one specific claim, that a foreign national living in social housing automatically fails Reform's economic test and will be deported. That is not current law and cannot be enforced under any framework that currently exists. Jenrick said so accurately and was rebuked for it.
The legitimate grievance, that foreign nationals occupy taxpayer-funded social housing while British citizens wait years on housing lists, is real and demands a real answer. That answer is to stop granting social housing to those without settled status, prioritise British citizens and bar illegal entrants from public housing entirely. Those policies are achievable now, within existing frameworks, without waiting for ECHR withdrawal or emergency derogation. They require political will, not constitutional revolution. That is the argument. It has not changed.
English
Jenrick Told the Truth. Yusuf Told Makerfield What It Wanted to Hear.
On Sunday, Robert Jenrick was asked whether a foreign national living in social housing would be deported simply because of where they lived. He said: "Well, not exclusively because of that." By Monday, Zia Yusuf had publicly rebuked him. By Tuesday the story was a Reform internal row. What it actually is, is a senior politician telling the truth about immigration law and being punished for it by his own party.
Yusuf's position is that any foreign national in social housing automatically fails Reform's economic test and will be deported. It sounds decisive. Makerfield goes to the polls on June 18. The only published constituency poll puts Labour's Andy Burnham on 43 percent and Reform's Robert Kenyon on 40 percent, with Restore Britain on 7 percent. On those numbers, every vote Restore takes from the right hands Burnham the seat. Yusuf knows it. That is what this row is really about.
Most people in social housing with legal status in Britain hold indefinite leave to remain or British citizenship. ILR cannot be revoked on the basis of housing tenure alone. It requires specific legal grounds, a process, and in most cases a right of appeal. British citizenship cannot be revoked at all except in the most extreme and specific circumstances. The ECHR, which Reform has pledged to leave, takes years to exit even with full political will and a parliamentary majority. In the interim, every removal attempted on Yusuf's automatic test would face immediate judicial challenge. Most would succeed.
Jenrick knows this. He was immigration minister. He has been through the legal architecture of removal in granular detail. His answer on Sunday was not weakness or confusion. It was accuracy. Housing status alone is not and has never been a legal ground for deportation under any framework Britain operates within. He said so. He was rebuked.
The internal row tells you something important about the gap between Reform's electoral promises and the governing reality they would face. Promising to deport everyone in social housing is not a policy. It is a slogan. Slogans win votes. They do not survive contact with the Court of Appeal.
None of this means the underlying concern is wrong. Foreign nationals living in taxpayer-funded social housing while British citizens wait years on housing lists is a genuine injustice and a legitimate political grievance. The answer is to stop granting social housing to those without settled status, to prioritise British citizens on housing lists, and to ensure that those here illegally cannot access public housing at all. Those are achievable, legally defensible policies that do not require the courts to be bypassed or the ECHR to have already been left.
Jenrick gave the legally honest answer. Yusuf gave the electorally convenient one. The voters of Makerfield will decide which one they prefer. But if Reform ever forms a government and attempts to implement Yusuf's automatic deportation test, it will not be Jenrick who looks foolish.
"Jenrick gave the legally honest answer. Yusuf gave the electorally convenient one. The voters of Makerfield will decide which one they prefer."
English
@kaiviti_cam @Benisgrug @Gregory35433534 Entryism is the likely point, its destroyed the UK's Conservatives, but more prosaically if you're letting in other parties' seconds you also risk becoming a party of opportunists rather than a party of principle.
English
@Benisgrug @Gregory35433534 They've picked both National and Labour ministers in equal amounts. So, what was your point exactly?
English
Stuart M retweetledi
This is why Kruger will be a liability in government. He would axe entire departments without having the first idea what they actually do, with no policy alternative. Arrogant libertarianism.
Pete North@FUDdaily
Reform UK civil service plan ‘would sack more planning officers than exist’ theguardian.com/politics/2026/…
English
@DVanLangenhove The model for dealing with this can be found in the old eastern bloc circa 1989.
English
Alles wat ik zei in de lezing aan de KU Leuven was 100% de waarheid. Dat gaf de rechter zelf toe. Waarom word ik dan opnieuw zwaar veroordeeld?
Oordeel zelf 👇🏻
Nederlands
@DrDStarkeyCBE "It was once considered the duty of every British subject to uphold the law. Did we simply give up?"
You got imprisoned for upholding the law because law hadn't caught up with prevailing political thought.
English
What has happened to British manhood?
I can’t help but feel like what @TommyRobinsonNewEra says here is correct. Previous generations of British men would not have tolerated the level of ambient violence and disorder on our streets that we currently see.
It was once considered the duty of every British subject to uphold the law. Did we simply give up?
English
Might have been a good idea to sort this shit out before hand with a properly conceived philosophical concept of what Reform believes in, from which you could have derived policy from. That way everyone would be singing from the same hymn sheet and embarrassing stuff like this would'nt happen.
English
Robert’s answer is not Reform policy.
As the person responsible for our deportation plan I want ensure people know where we stand:
If a foreign national lives in social housing at taxpayer expense, they automatically fail our economic test and will be deported.
Basil the Great@BasilTheGreat
Robert Jenrick admits Reform UK will NOT deport foreign nationals living in social housing Trevor Phillips showed him Restore Britain's deportation plans and was clear "YOU DON'T AGREE WITH RESTORE'S POLICIES" There are approx. half a MILLION social homes currently occupied by foreign nationals in the UK Deport them all and give those homes to British people Reform are just weak sauce It's time to Restore Britain
English
@Stefanftsch1 @FennellJW I think you need to have a read of recent policy documents, they don't support an automatic selection of Mogami at all, if anything the defence industrial policy would suggest Babcock.
English
@FennellJW Mogami hat 32 vls in der Variante die auch australien kauft ah140 ist aus dem Rennen Neuseeland wird nicht ein anderes Modell als Australien kaufen
Deutsch
AH140 and Mogami have been down-selected for the RNZN's ANAZAC frigate replacement. AH140 is the a larger of the two. Weapons could include 32 MK41 VLS with quad-packed CAMM and Stratus long-range AShMs, 57mm and 40mm Bofors guns, Dragonfire DEW, NSM AShMs, drones and USVs.
English
You can fit out the AH140 platform any which way you want because it is inherently modular, compare Type 31 with the Polish frigates that are all based on the AH 140.
If the current ANZAC's are anything to go by, the nature of Treasury and recent policy documents, a NZ variant would likely have as a minimum at least 32 Mk41, a decent hull sonar, 8 NSM ssm (which is being purchased now) and a competent mid range radar system.
Wouldnt surprise me if they are fitted for but not with towed array.
But there hasn't been anything to suggest what RNZN preferred specifications are however so we only have the current ships and the RANs selection of Mogami to speculate on.
Just as important the DefMin has not ruled out getting more than two new ships
English
@FennellJW Does anyone know what NZs requirements are wrt AAW and ASW capability?... i have a hard time seeing a T31 spec A140 beating Mogami , even with 32 VLS.
English
@mearchiavelli @GrayConnolly But what was the nature of that fleet in 1960, what replaced it and in what quantities?
I think that if you look at the RN in 1960, in detail, it's very clear that it's in steep decline, even if it's not yet apparent based on numbers.
English
@StuartM1827017 @GrayConnolly Not defending the cancellation of CVA-01 by any means but it's not like Britain had irreversibly declined. Britain had the second largest NATO fleet throughout the Cold War which only declined post-93 (but that was a NATO-wide decline including the US).
English
No one at the time thought they were intentionally presiding over the loss of empire or the diminution of the Royal Navy etc … instead weasel words were found then as now for what was being lost
Empire Aesthetics@Empireaesth
The last British battleship, HMS Vanguard, at Portsmouth (c.1950s)
English
@timdavies_uk @Telegraph Platform for show trials as a lesson on 'how it is'.
English
@Telegraph Go on then, I'll bite - explain the 'diversity' bit to us.
English
Terrorism and spy cases tried by the top magistrate in the country are to be televised for the first time
Allowing cameras in chief magistrate’s court will ‘boost transparency and diversity’ 👇
telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/2…
English
Well, they were certainly inefficient, later concepts for them would have given them the VLS fit of a Burke though, pushing them into obsolescence rather than outright obsolete, but that was never a value for money proposition.
In any event the US could do that as they were and are wealthy enough to do so, but I think the real question here is not if the UK could or should have maintained Vanguard as the US did the Iowa's, the question here is the nature of the UK's decline, the reasons for it and how the political establishment performed and why.
So the key here is if the UK had done things differently, and had a different mindset, in the years before 1960 it may have been less what was retained but more a question of could have been built for the future that wasn't. Think less of Vanguard (becomes a museum perhaps?) but CVA01 goes ahead, there are three of them for example, and a bigger escort fleet.
English
@StuartM1827017 @GrayConnolly That doesn't mean battleships weren't obsolete by the 1950s. The Iowas were recommissioned at enormous cost, they were extremely inefficient, and were only recommissioned to meet Reagan's entirely arbitrary and headline-grabbing goal of a 600-ship navy.
English
@mearchiavelli @GrayConnolly She was also recommissioned in the 80's and is now a museum, so what? The US was and is far wealthier than the UK.
English
@StuartM1827017 @GrayConnolly USS IOWA was decommissioned in 1958.
English
@Count_Hastfer @GrayConnolly Iirc It had been dubious value in the late 19th century, and a deficit from about 1900 onwards. Trade with Germany was of greater value in the years before 1914.
English
@GrayConnolly Could Britain afford the Empire? I always thought that margin between costs and benefits was thinning and even dipped below zero
English
Well, the loss of Empire was considered a political and economic reality, "want" had nothing to do with it.
Vanguard was decommissioned in 1960 and the Winds of Change Speech was 1960, and while correlation is not causation of course with regard to Vanguard specifically, the fact was that Britain could no longer afford what it had in the past.
English
@GrayConnolly This is a bad argument to make using HMS Vanguard specifically. It was the last battleship built because battleships had become obsolete, not because the government wanted to destroy the Empire. It was the last battleship *ever* built but that wouldn't suit your narrative.
English
This is not written by me, but by 'someone who was there', so to speak. This should put in perspective the costs and benefits of owning nuclear weapons.
Follow the ling for the entire essay.
The Nuclear Game - An Essay on Nuclear Policy Making
When a country first acquires nuclear weapons it does so out of a very accurate perception that possession of nukes fundamentally changes it relationships with other powers. What nuclear weapons buy for a New Nuclear Power (NNP) is the fact that once the country in question has nuclear weapons, it cannot be beaten. It can be defeated, that is it can be prevented from achieving certain goals or stopped from following certain courses of action, but it cannot be beaten. It will never have enemy tanks moving down the streets of its capital, it will never have its national treasures looted and its citizens forced into servitude. The enemy will be destroyed by nuclear attack first. A potential enemy knows that so will not push the situation to the point where our NNP is on the verge of being beaten. In effect, the effect of acquiring nuclear weapons is that the owning country has set limits on any conflict in which it is involved. This is such an immensely attractive option that states find it irresistible.
Only later do they realize the problem. Nuclear weapons are so immensely destructive that they mean a country can be totally destroyed by their use. Although our NNP cannot be beaten by an enemy it can be destroyed by that enemy. Although a beaten country can pick itself up and recover, the chances of a country devastated by nuclear strikes doing the same are virtually non-existent. [This needs some elaboration. Given the likely scale and effects of a nuclear attack, its most unlikely that the everybody will be killed. There will be survivors and they will rebuild a society but it will have nothing in common with what was there before. So, to all intents and purposes, once a society initiates a nuclear exchange its gone forever]. Once this basic factor has been absorbed, the NNP makes a fundamental realization that will influence every move it makes from this point onwards. If it does nothing, its effectively invincible. If, however, it does something, there is a serious risk that it will initiate a chain of events that will eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust. The result of that terrifying realization is strategic paralysis. With that appreciation of strategic paralysis comes an even worse problem.
A non-nuclear country has a wide range of options for its forces. Although its actions may incur a risk of being beaten they do not court destruction. Thus, a non-nuclear nation can afford to take risks of a calculated nature. However,a nuclear-equipped nation has to consider the risk that actions by its conventional forces will lead to a situation where it may have to use its nuclear forces with the resulting holocaust. Therefore, not only are its strategic nuclear options restricted by its possession of nuclear weapons, so are its tactical and operational options. So we add tactical and operational paralysis to the strategic variety. This is why we see such a tremendous emphasis on the mechanics of decision making in nuclear powers. Every decision has to be thought through, not for one step or the step after but for six, seven or eight steps down the line.
warrenmyers.com/war/Nuclear_Wa…
English
If I was in charge New Zealand would have nuclear weapons.
I think the world is going to get ugly and we need to make it clear we are off limits in international power struggles.
English
@Zaphod2042 Perhaps they need to invest in digging another one or a floating DD.
English
Another dry dock bottleneck emerges.
* Rosyth has three of things. However one is occupied with (very slowly) dismantling nuclear subs, and the largest is needed for the carriers - largely because Portsmouth hasn't got a large enough dry dock for them.
Navy Lookout@NavyLookout
HMS Active in the basin in Rosyth following her launch in March. Construction ongoing while she awaits HMS Venturer to vacate the dry dock. Via: @air_maritimepic
English
@FUDdaily The truth is you dont actually know anything for certain because you arent there, have never been in there, and wont be there. Whereas Danny and Dom have.
I think its arrogant to think you have all the answers and that EVERYONE else are just idiots/chancers
English
I simply do not believe the right wing mythology because it's all based on lazy generalisations about the civil service - tropes which are older than me. Time and again we see these deckchair shuffling initiatives which are non-solutions to a largely imaginary problem. Yes, senior civil servants do push back when policies scribbled on the back of fag packets and are unworkable/unlawful. That is part of their remit. The civil service just gets blamed by ineffectual politicians and crap parties who don't put any thought into policy delivery.
finny@jcwf1
@FUDdaily You don’t believe the civil service is at fault? Even when they fight what the govt wants to implement. Threatening to strike. Fought against implementing Brexit.
English
@DouglasCarswell Don't mean shit unless you have a government that kows what to do with power, how and why, there things sorely lacking in every major UK political party.
English
Danny Kruger is right - we need to change how Britain is governed, not just the government.
Britain is in a dire condition. Three decades of dismal governance have brought us close to ruin. We've changed governments and prime ministers. The policies that landed us here remain the same.
Why? Because the system of government behind those we elect is dysfunctional.
This is why Kruger's plan matters. His paper, Fixing the Centre, sets out how. Abolish the Cabinet Office. Replace it with an Office of the Prime Minister, run by a political Chief of Staff. Empower ministers to hire and fire. Scrap most quangos. Run government on charter letters, Australian-style.
I argued for precisely this in the Telegraph last March. It drew on a longer paper I wrote with Rado Tylercote — which set out the architecture in detail. A Chief of Staff at the helm. A Civil Service Unit. Budget allocation taken from the Treasury. An Appointments Unit for the quangocracy. Charter letters to each Secretary of State. Specific amendments to the CRAG Act 2010.
The irony? That paper was presented to Team Boris shortly after he became PM. I guess the urgent squeezed out the important and nothing was done.
The parallels between Kruger's plan and our blueprint are striking. Eight key proposals in Kruger's plan track, almost point for point, the architecture set out in our blueprint.
Danny has done something important. He has taken these ideas and turned them into a transformative programme for an incoming government.
Britain cannot recover without this.
English