Benjy Bass

Views are my own.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@lmkifiwin What a disingenuous post.

[Clive Jones MP @CliveJonesMP]

A really good visit to Reddam House School last week to speak with Jimena about issues that matter to young people.
Also thank you very much to Mauro, Dare, Pippa, Hetty and Jimena for raising your local and international concerns, and to Headteacher Rick Cross for welcoming me.

[Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey]

Then vs now. Such a shame.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

Update: YouTube refused to remove this advert.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

Incredibly perverse and abhorrent advert I received today. Promoting the creation of ai deepfakes without individuals' consent. Any reasonable person can see the need for legislation restricting the creation of such.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@RupertLowe10 While relatively noble, this does not represent the average MP whose predominant source of income comes from their salary.

[Keir Starmer @Keir_Starmer]

My update on the situation in the Middle East.

[David Wolfson @DXW_KC]

I disagree with Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General. I don’t accept that international law requires our Prime Minister to deliver a pusillanimous statement setting out the UK’s position whose first point is “We did not participate”.

I’ve set out the gist of my approach below. ⬇️

The Prime Minister has refused publicly to support the US and Israel strikes, and also refuses to allow the US to use UK bases, because of international law advice he has reportedly received from Lord Hermer.

International law ought to provide a mechanism to restrain and, if necessary, end despotic and tyrannical regimes such as that in Iran. If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law, and one which is worse than worthless in the modern world.

To be clear: I don’t believe that it is. I think international law is important, and both can and should provide a just legal order. I do, however, have serious questions as to the moral attitudes of some of its expositors; too many international lawyers serenely promote an analysis which ultimately protects tyrants.

Seven points, and some questions:

1 The inherent right to use force in the face of an imminent attack from a hostile nation which is responsible for a pattern of hostile actions exists for good reason: a country cannot be expected to remain idle and just wait for the next attack.

2 Iran has repeatedly threatened to attack the UK’s bases and personnel. Those threats come in the context of persistent Iranian attempts to launch attacks on UK soil, too; the Director General of MI5 has stated, and the PM confirmed last night, that the UK has responded to tens of Iranian-backed plots, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. There is also a constant barrage of cyberattacks; while not all cyberattacks are armed attacks in sense of Article 51 of the UN Charter, some may be, and all confirm not just hostile intent but action pursuant to such intent.

3 The UK’s long-standing allies, the US and Israel, were right to consider that they faced further attacks prior to their recent military action, given that (i) Iran has previously attacked both states directly and also through its many proxies; (ii) Iran has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy Israel; (iii) Iran was assessed to be on the brink of acquiring a nuclear capability with uranium enrichment at 60% (which can only be for military use); and (iv) Iran already possessed – as demonstrated by its recent attacks – a sophisticated and effective long-range delivery capability which Israel cannot fully neutralise with defensive weapons.

4 The acquisition of a nuclear capability by Iran represents a genocidal risk for Israel and its people. Iran’s repeatedly stated aim is to wipe the State of Israel, and its inhabitants, off the face of the earth. The slogan of the proxies through which Iran has often attacked Israel is: “God is greater, death to America, death to Israel, curse to the Jews, victory to Islam”. In these circumstances, whether they are characterised as part of an ongoing armed conflict with Iran or as a new use of force based on self-defence, Israel’s actions are justifiable.

5 The UK (and also the US) is permitted under international law to use force to aid another state which is acting in self-defence. Moreover, the UK is under an obligation in international law is to prevent genocide, not just to stop it: stopping an on-going genocide is required, but it necessarily means that action was taken too late.

1/2

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@OliGuy @TullamoreJew_ Far from quiet, but that fact only furthers their hypocrisy.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@zarahsultana This presence is much diminished in recent years. And this is what was voted on at the time, by virtue of the party in office.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@Conservatives The truth is: plan 5 students are also being ripped off. But that doesn't suit your narrative.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@MrRBourne Yes, very unpopular.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

Payments should and must also be lower than 9% of income over threshold.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

Consider this:

Instead of the facade of a plan 2/5 loan, a graduate tax.
Higher repayment thresholds and lower terms before writing off still relevant.
A graduate tax does not disproportionately affect mid tier earners, with higher earners paying a proportionate fee.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@joshpearson180 Fun point, but who suffers ?

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

@ClwydEnComu It definitely is.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

You're referring to Anna Turley, chairman of the Labour Party. And in fact, she did confirm that there were no plans to delay the general election last Sunday on skynews.

Timestamp - 15:33: https://t.co/dAO8Wrx9ts

The part conveniently left out of most twitter clips that I've seen...

And to clarify, it is technically possible for such an occurrence. An act of parliament would need to be passed in the absence of the house of lords, repealing implicitly or explicitly the provisions set out in the Parliament Act 1911 (Parliament Act 1949) on term limits. This could alternatively involve additional restriction on the amended provisions of the 1949 Act via another piece of legislation allowing for such an act to bypass the House of Lords.

I'm not sure if this is entirely true, but could this then provoke an interesting interaction where the delay required for an act of parliament to bypass the HoL elapses the five year term limit, ensuring that his Majesty would surely sooner dissolve the current parliament (Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022).

Regardless I think it's safe to say that the powers of parliament in this case would surely be challenged judicially. Think Jackson.

Some of our legal system is built on convention that does not HAVE to be followed. Methods of accountability and discretion generally prohibit tyranny, and this is such a case. It's frankly, a ridiculous point.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

'If it has not been dissolved earlier, a Parliament dissolves at the beginning of the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which it first met.' - Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, s.4.

Of course an act of parliament could amend this positively. Most recently during world war 2 - Prolongation of Parliament Acts 1940, 1941... 1944.

Notably however, section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 states that any bill containing provision to extend the duration of parliament beyond 5 years does not benefit from the same grace that an ordinary bill has of bypassing approval by the House of Lords after two failed sessions.

Now if all of this arduous and unlikely process has passed, there is still one man who can stop such a thing.
His Majesty has the option to either a) not give assent to such a bill; or b) utilise the provisions in section 2 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, using the power of the royal prerogative to dissolve parliament at any time.

To be pedantic, an election would have to be called for it to be 'cancelled', and since it doesn't make a lot of sense to rescind such an offer, the term delayed seems more appropriate.

[Benjy Bass @Basiyes_]

I preface this short summary by stating the fact of my study of Law at Bangor University.

Knowing the Debating and Political Society and many of their members personally, I was relatively taken aback by the initial statement that was sent out on social media platforms. The society and their discussions, in my experience, generally represent fringe politics, arbitrary morality and pseudo-intellectualism; therefore the anti-reform stance surprised me, considering what I've heard in their own debates.

Regardless, the usual Reform UK reactionary flamboyance was frustrating, and the condemnation was so over the top. The initial post by Zia Yusuf seemed to not recognise, or at least not question for Reform's own means, that the statement came from the debating society, as opposed to an official statement from the University, despite a clear watermark.

Hilariously, it appeared that many Reform members making posts on the matter seemed to believe that there was some legal issue under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. As education is a fully devolved matter, there's no reason to believe that the act would apply to Bangor University or its societies; though a society may potentially be subject to the act if it were operating as part of a University in England. This belief is furthered by the statement from Reform Wales later on, which suggests amending this fact if Reform attain a parliamentary majority, an obviously worthwhile and important policy.

The legal issue that does arise is under s.43 the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The act, unlike the Higher Education Act, sets out specific provisions for the section to apply in Wales. However, the wording 'take such steps' is surely fulfilled by the Universities policies, publicly available on their website.

The comments from many Reform members (and even some Conservative MPs...) were deplorable, detestable and completely inane. Threatening to remove state funding from a University because a small group of their students disagree with a political stance is absurd. The response is reminiscent of Gleichschaltung. Reform would certainly be demonstrating their care for Welsh issues by means of decimating one of Wales's oldest and most important higher education institutions.

I do not personally see much reason to support the statement put out by the debating society at Bangor; but far more vehemently I denounce the pathetic response and pointless campaign of Reform UK for the issue. Some forum for candidates from any political party is an exciting and important opportunity that any university in England or Wales, should encourage. Growth is borne of discussion, and the educated youth should be frontrunners therein.