UKH

The government now openly announces its intention to break laws.

Will this spread in time to other areas of society? Ie will integrity and honesty become less expected?

Already far too late for this Government. Remember the unlawful prorogation of Parliament...?

Been a good day for Johnson

- Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to face new trial, on new charges. Thanks, Boris.
- Government admits proposed Brexit bill breaks international law
- most senior government lawyer resigns
- covid infections continue to rise

Still, I'm sure Demonic Cummstains will be glad to see another senior civil servant go.

We've been beaten to it:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/international_laws-724672

I don't believe there'll be a detectable effect in individuals' behaviour in their lives. As social animals, we're motivated mostly by what other people think of us, not how much of a disgusting, lying bell-end of a turn we have as PM.

As for all this, if you vote for stupid policies, and for liars to be in charge, then you reap what you sow. This country is a pigsty and some of us have got responsibility to bear for it.

That's not my question. I was wonderingabout the rest of society. Will being untrustworthy become normal professionally and socially after the government s lead?

I hope you are right but suspect not. Look at e.g Russia, and increasingly the US. 

It could make for an interesting sociological study, towards trying to find out. Off the top of my head, I have a hunch that how hard life becomes (or doesn't) might have more of an effect than political leadership, I've always thought we're quite animal like in that kind of way. With Japan being the kind of county where wallets and valuable things seem to get handed in to lost property and the police (and quite a hard country to make headway in IIRC), I'm possibly quite wrong.

I don't have any data to suggest that personal integrity has changed in line with (and caused by) changes in leadership in either of those countries, nor any other.

Okay. Yes, I think it's likely. The fact that we appear to now accept the lies, philandering, cheating and frauds suggests society no longer finds these things problematic.

We didn't used to accept it in government, but it's been standard practice in business since man walked the earth. Is it such a jump? Just a different kind of "levelling up".

To Boris Johnson, that's the equivalent of coming home to find that there's some junk mail on the doormat you've got to bend down to pick up and throw in the bin. What a pain!

Yes they are a symptom not the cause.

For example despite Trumps claims he tried running for president with the same basic tactics in the past. The fact he succeeded this time doesnt show him as a 10d chess grandmaster since he has shown no adaption to circumstances its just this time the ground was fertile.

History shows us civilisations and political systems fall and there is no evidence that democracy is going to be an outlier to that. Maybe if its stable for 10k years I will buy in but currently its but a baby who knows how it will end. The bit which really depresses me is whenever I read a history book about a significant change/failure in the system I am always sitting there going "you morons how could you not notice this obvious path to failure" and then I wonder am I being overly paranoid or not?

Personally, I buy the Stephen Pinker argument. We're monkeys in shoes and we behave in ways that are good for the propagation of our genes. Democracy, science and capitalism are objectively sensible ways to behave from a genes-eye view.

I always thought integrity was e2

Isn't it VS (though in my opinion should never have been upgraded)?

The only 'Integrity' I've ever climbed is a rather well-known, gentle 3-star VS on Skye.

'Integrity':  a quality we expect of others

'honesty': a quality we fail to apply to our own lack of integrity

Not me, though obviously...

​​​

Trust is essential to business. There are crooks, and they are why we have Trading Standards and the courts; but they are a minority. If it really were standard practice business would be impossible. 

Our western democratic capitalist society only exists because every previous civilisation has failed for one reason or another, it's a given ours will do the same at some point. It's just a question of what the catalyst is; covid, climate change, sea level rising... or some other natural event like a meteor or solar flare. 

But surely that’s all just bureaucracy designed to stifle the buccaneering business spirit which is  Going lead us on towards a global conquest once the shackles of continent wide standards on bananas are thrown off.

Bring on the bonfire of red tape 

Why would it. You can’t do anything without trust. 
 

Laws are tested all the time. If enough people believe a law isn’t working and needs to be changed, we change it or refine it. Otherwise we’d all be stuck in the 15th Century. They give a framework to guide behaviours.

Rubbish.  There are plenty of "low trust" societies.

Well quite.  Which is why the government ignoring laws is so concerning.  Both directly and because of the example it sets  - if the government is above the law, why not anyone else who feels like they should be?  Hence my question

Being flippant, I'd say, it won't spread to other areas of society because Johnson and crew have taken all the lack of honesty and integrity and kept it for themselves.

More seriously you can see it occurring elsewhere in society, at least in some way.

If those responsible for running the country, making the laws and by association looking after the welfare its people do not exhibit honesty and integrity then why should anyone else?

Dave

The key bit is change or refine it. When you have the law making body say they will just break the law it becomes a bit awkward.

What they’ve said is that they will break international law by legally changing U.K. law.  It’s Parliament that will do this, if it’s done, not the government.  There is no law making body for international law.

So you are quite happy with the UKs word being worthless? Why doesn't that surprise me. You are pretty scary actually. You will clearly accept absolutely any action by a government you support

I see Cummings's Machiavellian signature all over this.  Even if it got through the commons it then has to get through the Lords, which it won't.  That's why Brandon Lewis unambiguously stated it would break international law (when was the last time a minister from this government admitted the truth like that - never, makes you ask why now).  When it fails, in whichever house (although better if it makes it to the Lords and gets sent back, because that runs the clock down even more) Boris can lay the blame on someone else again, "We worked tirelessly to achieve all the things we promised and would have delivered but 'remainer enemies of the people'® conspired to screw over the hard working British people."

It is this Government that will present the legislation. The responsibility lies with the Government. 

There is no expectation of honour and integrity in either Johnson's UK or Trump's US.  They no longer care what they do because the people who vote for them don't expect them to act with integrity, they know they are lying, corrupt c*nts but they vote for them anyway because they have decided it is a means to another goal: restricting abortion, gun control, maintaining white privilege or return to imperial glory.

Trump just played 'Fortunate Son' at a campaign rally and nobody blinked an eye.

The newly appointed Tory head of the BBC visits Scotland and a week later BBC Scotland decides not to carry the Scottish Government corona virus briefings at a point where infection rate is rising steeply and they are just unveiling a new NHS Scotland Test and Trace app.  (One that has been done in an industry standard way based on Google / Apple tech and with proper privacy protection).

The point is that whatever legislation is passed by Parliament is by definition legal under U.K. law.  It won’t be illegal, if it’s done.

On what basis could the lords reject it?

So you disagree with Brandon Lewis's statement in the HoC earlier this week that the proposed legislation “does break international law in a specific and limited way”, and with the views of three of the Government's senior legal advisors (the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland) who all agreed that the proposed legislation would be a clear breach of the WA and international law. 

No.

So you agree with Brandon Lewis's statement that the proposed legislation wold break international law? Do you think it a good thing that Britain is seen to be breaking international law? 

That is unreal and ought to be beyond belief. 

You're only 'some guy off the internet' rather a political pundit (no offence etc ), but that does sound crafty and cynical enough that it might be true. I was about to have quite a nice afternoon. We live in strange times, where the UK risks developing a new reputation for being unpredictable, and potentially not being a country to be trusted when it signs or agrees to things. 

Fortunately that's not true.  As one tiny example: I regular work with many people who are honourable and trustworthy.  I know the bill for work I have done and just submitted will be paid promptly without delays etc.  The person I submitted it too  won't check the details because they know I am not trying to screw them over.  This sort of trust is present across society  - when it breaks down people notice, not when it is present.  The exception of course increasingly being in politics.

That would be up to each individual Peer.  They don't give a reason, they debate it and vote on it, as I am sure you are aware.

The BBC decision is utterly irresponsible, politicising access to public health information in the middle of a volatile pandemic. I have no doubt that it's part of a co ordinated attempt by the current Westminster Government to undermine the elected Scottish government, Scottish institutions and ultimately democracy in Scotland. The recently published bill attacking the devolution settlement in Scotland and Wales couldn't have made that more explicit. With a new politically appointed DG the BBC are now complicit in that. I've just cancelled my licence. With a sustained majority in Scotland now demanding self determination and the restoration of democracy in Scotland, we need an independent and impartial broadcaster in Scotland more than ever. It's clear we no longer have that. 

I think it was clear from the context that my comment was about Johnson and Trump and their governments, not people in general.

You've obviously not read any of the legal assessments of what has been proposed. The legal precedents are screamingly clear....domestic law cannot override international agreements. If that were the case any "tin pot" regime could push through domestic laws and then act with impunity regardless of the the international community and international laws. It's banana republic time, only with Tory MP's singing "Rule Britannia" or "Ten German Bombers" while they hurl their empty Stella bottles at what were once our European allies.

Ironic that they will have chosen a beer they believe to have been brewed in the EU (only "believe" as there's a pretty good chance it was brewed in Wales)..............

Not really. We all know that, and OP was clearly about wider society.

It's just so childish that Mr Dixon actually believes that domestic law can override international law. At least I hope it is mere childishness and not something more sinister.

Regardless of the technicalities of breaking the law, it's pissing off our major trading partners (our European friends) and jeopardising good trade deals with them. And the Americans have clearly stated that a new trade agreement between the US and UK is a non-starter if it risks undermining the Irish peace accord.

I think it’s the other way around, the reason the government thinks it’s ok to lack integrity is because lack of integrity has become less expected in our society. Worse - integrity has become a flaw.

He is right, though, in the case of the U.K. anyway domestic law always override international law. Ministers and MP aren’t supposed to put anything on the table that is against international law but that is only by convention.

A government that illegally shut down parliament to get what it wanted is certainly not going to care about such details.

All of this is because we have a completely archaic system which was sort of democratic only thanks to the relative soundness of mind of our previous leaders and international framework such as EU membership which plugged the holes in our system. Two things we don’t have anymore.

Apparently not, at least while a signatory the Vienna Convention.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would...

I don't sense that, either professionally or personally. If anything the opposite. For example, ethical considerations are taken very seriously by my professional engineering body. Much more than 10 or 20 years ago. 

I think you are confusing virtue-signalling with integrity.

Professionnally, I have witnessed the same as you - a huge growing importance of ethical consideration, whether it’s diversity, climate change etc etc-

But mostly what has grown is the number of professional liars paid to talk about it, run “workshops” and “conferences” and other multiple tick boxing exercise.

That isn’t a sign of integrity, on the contrary, it’s the sign that it has all become a corrupt and fake popularity contest. That it produces some tangible results sometimes is an happy accident.

That is correct, such a law would breach the Vienna convention quite clearly, but in the U.K., UK law supersedes the Vienna convention. And the Vienna convention is not something that Bojo gives a toss about.

Because of the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, international laws and treaties do not produce legal obligations in the U.K. legal system. For that to happen, they need to be explicitly  implemented - or refered to - in UK law... which of course can be changed. Or sometimes, it is adhered through political convention only, but that can be ignored.

Note that this is very different to the legal tradition of other european countries, where typically, international law supersedes national law.

Johnson et al probably think we can go back to when 'international law' was us sending in a gunboat.

Well your profession seems less serious about it then.  I am talking more about conflicts of interest, inappropriate claims of competence, bribery etc than the issues you mention (which are also important but not directly about trust and integrity) There are regular disciplinary hearing, and serious results, for breaches, which are publicly available. For example

https://www.istructe.org/resources/news/report-of-disciplinary-board/

That's quite anecdotal and not new at all these issues have been recognised in most industries in the UK quite a long time ago, your specific industry may be a bit late to it.

Oh, sorry.  I forgot.  You can never be wrong about anything and are a world expert on all topics.  I'll leave it there.

'' I don't sense that, either professionally or personally. If anything the opposite. For example, ethical considerations are taken very seriously by my professional engineering body. Much more than 10 or 20 years ago. ''

It almost seems like you've taken what MG posted, and reframed it to fit it into your world view, how can you know enough to think he's confusing virtue signalling with integrity?

We simply talked at cross purpose. From where I’m sitting I have witnessed the world of work in the “white collar” service sector to become more and more of fake popularity contest, with more and more people doing completely useless, made up jobs.

A phenomenon well documented by the way. 

Hence why I was surprised when he says integrity improved as I assumed we were talking about the same thing. 

Turns out he was talking of something quite different but of far less significance, culturally speaking. 

Ho, sorry, I forgot that you can’t accept being corrected on a minor but very basic and fundamental point without your pride being hurt.

You don’t need to be a world expert to know about the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, you just need to have been to school. It’s literally the most basic principle.