@ccprog, I don't think being for or against particular sexualities is what moves this group. I think they wish to prohibit mass immigration largely because they understand the connection between it and attacks on their own and their children's livelihoods, as opposed to anything strongly intrinsic to the migrants themselves.

If the Interpretation Act were repealed, then it would simply fall to the judge to decide the point of what the law is. A lot of people forget that the law is ultimately whatever a judge says it is. The King was originally the ultimate statute lawmaker and final judge of appeal, and only later were these functions formally delegated (in reality, appropriated during political changes) to different bodies, in which there could be a possibility of inconsistent policy. (2/2)

@kenod, I think there is potentially an ambiguity in the word "repeal" - most commonly in relation to an Act of Parliament, it is most naturally going to mean "terminate any further effect of" rather than "treat as if it had never been made". If a repealing act is itself repealed, then it simply leaves a void again as if no relevant Act is in force, and where the judiciary then have a free hand to decide the case - it doesn't revive the effect of previous Acts, which should already be forgotten. (1/2)

@supercat, and what's to stop the US changing or overturning their constitution to make treaties subservient to more things, or to make treaties completely void? How will any other party in the world coerce the US for non-compliance with a treaty which it isn't in US interests to preserve anymore, except by winning war with the US?

@Allure, and war determines which side decides what is acceptable. You're presupposing the continued sovereign existence of Ukraine, who can take a view on what is acceptable to them or not. The outcome of wars can be that one state becomes a vassal state with fealty to the victor. Another outcome can be the complete dismissal of the separate existence of the weaker state administration, with land, assets, citizens, and culture absorbed. There are others, but my point is that the outcome of war is not necessarily one acceptable to both sides (and sometimes not acceptable to either side!).

@supercat, but what binds then from "violating" it, except the resumption of war? The choice of whether or not to continue abiding by the treaty is the choice a sovereign can make, and what binds them is their interest in compliance for the time being. When you're talking about whether you can "trust" the other side to comply, you're implicitly acknowledging that you don't think they actually have an interest in the treaty - and there's the problem with such a treaty. Liberals are scratching their heads about how they might force Russia to comply with a harmful treaty.

I think I'd be more worried about my family at the fronts than the temperature inside the fridge.

@Mykola, the essence of what really forms and seals the treaty is the benefit to each side. The noting and signing is just ceremonial. Often the only thing that each side gives up, is the fighting, which by definition neither of them want to do anymore. If the situation changes and one side does want to resume fighting, then fighting resumes. Not all wars end in treaty - many end in a victory and a surrender, where the victor imposes the settlement as he pleases (so there isn't the question of trust or ongoing compliance).

@gerrit, war parties don't sign treaties on trust, they sign them when their interests align to stop fighting. If you're already anticipating that the treaty is going to be so harsh to one side or another that they will later want to renege, then it's not a treaty that will fly. Treaties that fly, are those which deliver continuing and indefinite value to both sides in abiding.

@gerrit, the issue wouldn't just be retention of land, it would be a commitment to Ukrainian neutrality (i.e. political friendliness) towards Russia and exclusion of NATO. Those are fundamental points on which the war rests.

@alamar, there's no reason Ukraine should be absent an economy of its own, if the West constantly inject capital equipment to replenish all war damage. Averaged across the entire West and secured with Ukrainian assets to be looted after the war, I doubt the costs are large - I mean, what does a new substation or a diesel generator cost compared to the hi-tech missiles Russia uses to destroy them?

@NoDataDumpNoContribution, I think the difference in the past is that there were all predictable issues. Toilets were sometimes still in back gardens. Airlines were moderately more expensive. Cars had to be parked by hand. But today everything seems to be out of control - you don't know whether the train will turn up, or the plane will fly, you can't get someone to fix the toilet back to its existing condition. You can't go somewhere and know there'll be space to park, or that the cost will be reasonable.