Alexander Horne
@legalmusings.bsky.social
Barrister. Commentator. Visiting Prof @ Durham University. Former parliamentary lawyer & special adviser UK Parliament (JCHR, EU, Women & Equalities; International Agreements). Musings on law, politics & restaurants . Personal views.
🇬🇧🇧🇪🇮🇱
📍LDN/BX
🇬🇧🇧🇪🇮🇱
📍LDN/BX
This is almost as good as when Liz Truss said that barking patrol dogs could help deter drones from smuggling contraband into prisons.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cr04...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cr04...
'Barking dogs deter drones': Justice chief Liz Truss baffles MPs - Daily Mail
YouTube video by Daily Mail World
m.youtube.com
November 10, 2025 at 7:15 PM
This is almost as good as when Liz Truss said that barking patrol dogs could help deter drones from smuggling contraband into prisons.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cr04...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=cr04...
Best thing about getting it delivered from somewhere reputable (John Lewis, Richer Sounds etc.) is that they tend to set it up for you - which often saves a lot of time.
November 9, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Best thing about getting it delivered from somewhere reputable (John Lewis, Richer Sounds etc.) is that they tend to set it up for you - which often saves a lot of time.
H/t @glanktree.bsky.social for the Written Answer.
November 4, 2025 at 2:51 PM
H/t @glanktree.bsky.social for the Written Answer.
If the Government treats Parliament with contempt, should we be surprised if the general public takes a similar view of politicians?
Labour will, of course, regret their approach if Reform, or the Conservatives, win a majority at the next election. But they never think that far ahead.
Labour will, of course, regret their approach if Reform, or the Conservatives, win a majority at the next election. But they never think that far ahead.
November 4, 2025 at 2:49 PM
If the Government treats Parliament with contempt, should we be surprised if the general public takes a similar view of politicians?
Labour will, of course, regret their approach if Reform, or the Conservatives, win a majority at the next election. But they never think that far ahead.
Labour will, of course, regret their approach if Reform, or the Conservatives, win a majority at the next election. But they never think that far ahead.
Most commentators on this issue have merely asked for a vote in the Commons on important new treaties and a right to information (similar to the system at the European Parliament).
When in opposition, Labour was all for this.
Unsurprisingly, they now find transparency uncomfortable.
When in opposition, Labour was all for this.
Unsurprisingly, they now find transparency uncomfortable.
November 4, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Most commentators on this issue have merely asked for a vote in the Commons on important new treaties and a right to information (similar to the system at the European Parliament).
When in opposition, Labour was all for this.
Unsurprisingly, they now find transparency uncomfortable.
When in opposition, Labour was all for this.
Unsurprisingly, they now find transparency uncomfortable.
Thank you for the support.
I always struggle with the idea that - rather than reading pieces, or ignoring them, or engaging with the actual arguments - some folk prefer ad hominem attacks.
Such is life I suppose.
I always struggle with the idea that - rather than reading pieces, or ignoring them, or engaging with the actual arguments - some folk prefer ad hominem attacks.
Such is life I suppose.
November 4, 2025 at 10:48 AM
Thank you for the support.
I always struggle with the idea that - rather than reading pieces, or ignoring them, or engaging with the actual arguments - some folk prefer ad hominem attacks.
Such is life I suppose.
I always struggle with the idea that - rather than reading pieces, or ignoring them, or engaging with the actual arguments - some folk prefer ad hominem attacks.
Such is life I suppose.
I’m not quite sure who is supposed to be promoting “racists and fascists”. I assume you didn’t take the time to read the piece before posting?
For the record, I’ve written for the Spectator, Prospect, the New Statesman and the Critic.
For the record, I’ve written for the Spectator, Prospect, the New Statesman and the Critic.
November 4, 2025 at 10:45 AM
I’m not quite sure who is supposed to be promoting “racists and fascists”. I assume you didn’t take the time to read the piece before posting?
For the record, I’ve written for the Spectator, Prospect, the New Statesman and the Critic.
For the record, I’ve written for the Spectator, Prospect, the New Statesman and the Critic.
Fair enough. Well this short extract may explain why I said what I said.
Many of the arguments around the ECHR occur when rights come into conflict - so it’s not a simple question of saying “what rights are you prepared to lose?”
Many of the arguments around the ECHR occur when rights come into conflict - so it’s not a simple question of saying “what rights are you prepared to lose?”
November 4, 2025 at 10:30 AM
Fair enough. Well this short extract may explain why I said what I said.
Many of the arguments around the ECHR occur when rights come into conflict - so it’s not a simple question of saying “what rights are you prepared to lose?”
Many of the arguments around the ECHR occur when rights come into conflict - so it’s not a simple question of saying “what rights are you prepared to lose?”
Thank you. I hope it’s clear from the text of the article that what I am proposing is reform of the ECHR for the 21 century, not advocating for Reform (the political party).
November 4, 2025 at 10:26 AM
Thank you. I hope it’s clear from the text of the article that what I am proposing is reform of the ECHR for the 21 century, not advocating for Reform (the political party).
You clearly didn’t read the article, or you’d appreciate that was precisely the wrong question to pose to me.
November 4, 2025 at 9:22 AM
You clearly didn’t read the article, or you’d appreciate that was precisely the wrong question to pose to me.
If it is the latter, then I think the U.K. (and Europe as a whole) is fighting a losing battle on the manufacturing front.
Protectionism can only work for so long. We’ve outsourced all the necessary tech to Asia and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Protectionism can only work for so long. We’ve outsourced all the necessary tech to Asia and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
October 29, 2025 at 8:42 AM
If it is the latter, then I think the U.K. (and Europe as a whole) is fighting a losing battle on the manufacturing front.
Protectionism can only work for so long. We’ve outsourced all the necessary tech to Asia and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Protectionism can only work for so long. We’ve outsourced all the necessary tech to Asia and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
On the final question, yes there is certainly an irony.
I am uncertain as to the UK’s principal reason for maintaning a steel industry - national security or jobs. If it is the former, I guess that the answer may simply be to use U.K. steel for U.K. military purposes (even if it is uneconomical).
I am uncertain as to the UK’s principal reason for maintaning a steel industry - national security or jobs. If it is the former, I guess that the answer may simply be to use U.K. steel for U.K. military purposes (even if it is uneconomical).
October 29, 2025 at 8:40 AM
On the final question, yes there is certainly an irony.
I am uncertain as to the UK’s principal reason for maintaning a steel industry - national security or jobs. If it is the former, I guess that the answer may simply be to use U.K. steel for U.K. military purposes (even if it is uneconomical).
I am uncertain as to the UK’s principal reason for maintaning a steel industry - national security or jobs. If it is the former, I guess that the answer may simply be to use U.K. steel for U.K. military purposes (even if it is uneconomical).
On your second point, I am less sure (as I am not entirely clear what you have in mind).
No state (or in the case of the EU grouping of states) will act against its own interests (indefinitely). The question is whether some form of co-operation or collaboration is mutually beneficial.
No state (or in the case of the EU grouping of states) will act against its own interests (indefinitely). The question is whether some form of co-operation or collaboration is mutually beneficial.
October 29, 2025 at 8:28 AM
On your second point, I am less sure (as I am not entirely clear what you have in mind).
No state (or in the case of the EU grouping of states) will act against its own interests (indefinitely). The question is whether some form of co-operation or collaboration is mutually beneficial.
No state (or in the case of the EU grouping of states) will act against its own interests (indefinitely). The question is whether some form of co-operation or collaboration is mutually beneficial.
On your first point. Absolutely not. The EEA countries have an independent trade policy. Switzerland even has a deal with China as far as I am aware.
The U.K. should expect nothing less.
The U.K. should expect nothing less.
October 29, 2025 at 8:26 AM
On your first point. Absolutely not. The EEA countries have an independent trade policy. Switzerland even has a deal with China as far as I am aware.
The U.K. should expect nothing less.
The U.K. should expect nothing less.
If every discussion starts with the question “what’s in it for us”, don’t be hugely surprised if your neighbour begins to ask the same question.
Perhaps a better question is whether close co-operation is to the benefit of the neighbourhood - be it on trade, migration or security.
Perhaps a better question is whether close co-operation is to the benefit of the neighbourhood - be it on trade, migration or security.
October 29, 2025 at 6:55 AM
If every discussion starts with the question “what’s in it for us”, don’t be hugely surprised if your neighbour begins to ask the same question.
Perhaps a better question is whether close co-operation is to the benefit of the neighbourhood - be it on trade, migration or security.
Perhaps a better question is whether close co-operation is to the benefit of the neighbourhood - be it on trade, migration or security.
That’s before you begin to look at bigger picture issues like defence. The U.K. is an Island a long way away from the troubles of the world.
As a nuclear power, it is one of the major guarantees of European security. Why should it bother - it costs an enormous amount of money to project power.
As a nuclear power, it is one of the major guarantees of European security. Why should it bother - it costs an enormous amount of money to project power.
October 29, 2025 at 6:49 AM
That’s before you begin to look at bigger picture issues like defence. The U.K. is an Island a long way away from the troubles of the world.
As a nuclear power, it is one of the major guarantees of European security. Why should it bother - it costs an enormous amount of money to project power.
As a nuclear power, it is one of the major guarantees of European security. Why should it bother - it costs an enormous amount of money to project power.
Niall - perhaps you need to look at this question from another perspective.
If the EU doesn’t wish to remain close friends with the U.K., why is it in the UK’s interest to buy from the EU in the long run?
Why not just buy from China - which is much cheaper? (e.g. cars).
Meat from Australia and NZ?
If the EU doesn’t wish to remain close friends with the U.K., why is it in the UK’s interest to buy from the EU in the long run?
Why not just buy from China - which is much cheaper? (e.g. cars).
Meat from Australia and NZ?
October 29, 2025 at 6:47 AM
Niall - perhaps you need to look at this question from another perspective.
If the EU doesn’t wish to remain close friends with the U.K., why is it in the UK’s interest to buy from the EU in the long run?
Why not just buy from China - which is much cheaper? (e.g. cars).
Meat from Australia and NZ?
If the EU doesn’t wish to remain close friends with the U.K., why is it in the UK’s interest to buy from the EU in the long run?
Why not just buy from China - which is much cheaper? (e.g. cars).
Meat from Australia and NZ?
I’m guessing Farage might be quite happy to go back to something like this:
www.parliament.uk/about/living...
www.parliament.uk/about/living...
Bill of Rights 1689
www.parliament.uk
October 28, 2025 at 9:19 AM
I’m guessing Farage might be quite happy to go back to something like this:
www.parliament.uk/about/living...
www.parliament.uk/about/living...
Labour’s complete inability to push through reductions to the size of the state due to backbench resistance should also prove a warning to Farage and co.
And if they promise both high levels of state spending and financial rectitude they will also be found out by the markets.
And if they promise both high levels of state spending and financial rectitude they will also be found out by the markets.
October 28, 2025 at 9:09 AM
Labour’s complete inability to push through reductions to the size of the state due to backbench resistance should also prove a warning to Farage and co.
And if they promise both high levels of state spending and financial rectitude they will also be found out by the markets.
And if they promise both high levels of state spending and financial rectitude they will also be found out by the markets.
I certainly wouldn’t sign up to ending a Government by ‘protest and violence’ which is clearly anti-democratic whatever one may think of FPTP.
However, the disintegration of the Johnson administration shows quite how quickly a party can run into problems even with a large majority.
However, the disintegration of the Johnson administration shows quite how quickly a party can run into problems even with a large majority.
October 28, 2025 at 9:07 AM
I certainly wouldn’t sign up to ending a Government by ‘protest and violence’ which is clearly anti-democratic whatever one may think of FPTP.
However, the disintegration of the Johnson administration shows quite how quickly a party can run into problems even with a large majority.
However, the disintegration of the Johnson administration shows quite how quickly a party can run into problems even with a large majority.