Eerst maar eens leren hoe je zo'n afbreekstreepje gebruikt.

Anyone for a sovereign immunity defence?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...

That seems like the academic equivalent to how Sam Altman sells OpenAI to investors. ("By all means invest your money with us, but know that we can't promise that you'll ever get it back, because we don't know what role money will play in a post-AGI world.")

This looks rather meaningful.

Brilliant! I look forward to hearing why Sikorski took a $100,000 annual paycheck from the UAE while he was a Member of the European Parliament.

Here are the two plaques that were removed. I am so ashamed of our racist current administration.

This blog post gives a lot of interesting analysis, but doesn't quite answer that question. constitution-unit.com/2025/11/08/p...

Are you kidding me, I was endlessly entertained by that case while it was pending. Although my assumption was that Their Lordships didn’t particularly enjoy digging through a dead baronet’s dirty laundry, and would find a way to decide that the DNA evidence was irrelevant.

Ah, I see, yes, that's right. That's definitely a relevant difference.

AI informs me (perhaps falsely) that this is not generally an offence in English law.

By way of comparative law:
- Art. 435 of the Dutch criminal code makes it a misdemeanor
- In the US they had the Stolen Valor Act for military decorations, but it was struck down on First Amendment grounds.

Yes, honours is what I looked for.

Earlier I had two cases about different claimants to the same title (i.e. not JR). But I suspect that, before the House of Lords Act 1999, anything involving a peerage was a whole different story anyway.

I am embarrassed to admit that ChatGPT found the answer faster than I did. In Scots law there is a case from the Inner House, following Canadian precedent, saying there is no JR for decisions to award or forfeit an honours. www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/ee5p5c...

And, since this stuff is more entertaining than my actual job, here is a House of Lords judgment from 1821 deciding who was entitled to "the titles, honours, and dignities of Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorn, Viscount Lyon, Lord Glammis, &c". www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKH...

The Privy Council decided who was entitled to the Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill, but the procedural posture of that case was a bit weird. (To put it mildly.) But I suppose it's authority for the proposition that a title is something you can litigate over. www.jcpc.uk/cases/jcpc-2...

Yes. I always get your blog posts via my RSS reader and in my inbox, and I'm always happy to read them.

Of course, the EU has a long history of finding "levers" for change that were not, at first glance, a big idea. The secret to dislodging the incumbents may well be patience and railway packages.

My sense is that serious competition on and for the passenger transport market and serious competition between rail, car, and plane for cross-border rail will only happen if the Commission finds a lever to dislodge the political power of the incumbent railway companies. And this "plan" is not it.

True, but competition law might have something to say about the matter too, depending on the circumstances. The whole point of competition law is to make companies do things that they would otherwise not do as a matter of common sense.

That would be the very definition of anticompetitive scrapping. A deal not to compete.

Als Eerdmans dat zou doen wordt hij minder dan een jaar later, bij de volgende verkiezingen, tot nul zetels gereduceerd. Dead man walking. En dat gaat ervan uit dat hij de volgende verkiezingen überhaupt zou halen zonder het merendeel van zijn fractie aan afsplitsers te verliezen.