‘Russia must be held to account’: Rishi Sunak condemns Russia’s war crimes

by



‘Russia must be held to account’: Rishi Sunak condemns Russia’s war crimes. At Munich Security Conference, Rishi Sunak says that Russia should ‘pay’ towards Ukraine’s reconstruction and that ‘Russia must be held to account for the terrible destruction it has inflicted’.

#rishisunak #russia #russiaukrainewar #russiaukrainewar #ukraine #dailymail

Original Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11765965/Sunak-arrives-Germany-security-conference.html
Original Video: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2880567/Video-Rishi-Sunak-Russia-pay-Ukrainian-reconstruction.html

Daily Mail Homepage: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Daily Mail Facebook: https://facebook.com/dailymail
Daily Mail IG: https://instagram.com/dailymail
Daily Mail Snap: https://www.snapchat.com/discover/Daily-Mail/8392137033
Daily Mail Twitter: https://twitter.com/MailOnline
Daily Mail Pinterest: https://pinterest.co.uk/dailymail

Get the free Daily Mail mobile app: https://dailymail.co.uk/mobile

source

20 thoughts on “‘Russia must be held to account’: Rishi Sunak condemns Russia’s war crimes”

  6. Did he really just say the whole world should hold Russia to account?? What is happening in this world who's going to put Britain and America to account!!!! 1 million Iraqis are dead because we thought they have weapons of mass destruction and yet we were there for around 10 years taking gold and oil that's just one country there's too many to list hypocrisy is the only word I can use

    Reply

  8. I am not sure what this guy is taking, but I want some of it. They are out of their mind. The British government have been killing and raping people all over the African continent with complete impunity. So now that a white country is suffering, we should all sing cumbaya. Get over yourselves.

    Reply

  10. A constitutional renaissance

    If you’re worried about tyranny, consult the old Bill.

    THIS is not the first time that this country has endured tyranny. Fortunately for us today, however, our forefathers settled the matter once and for all.

    James II was a tyrannical king; the political class of his day invited William of Orange to bring his army to England, sure in their belief that confronted with an invading army, the king would not be able to resist. Indeed, James’s army deserted, and he abandoned the throne, living out the remaining years of his life in France.

    In offering the now-vacant throne to William and Mary, the political classes were not so foolish to risk a repetition of monarchical tyranny, and so the throne was accepted on the basis that the new king and queen agree to the Declaration of Rights as it was then (1688).
    What became the Bill of Rights restrained the monarch, insomuch as it allowed the monarch to form a government, but that government would be required to seek parliamentary approval for its actions. This is the founding constitutional document that forms the basis of how we are governed to this very day.
    The question, then, is: did our forebears, in closing out one avenue of tyranny (monarchy), open up the possibility of another – a parliamentary tyranny? The answer to this question, pressing today in light of recent events is, no.

    The Bill of Rights is very clear on this matter. It declares that the parties to the agreement (the king and queen, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons) cannot do anything that is to the prejudice of the people. In short, the crown, the government and parliament are constitutionally constrained from doing anything that would harm the people.

    Knowing the power of the document, our forefathers also understood how likely it would be that later generations of tyrants would likely wish to do away with the most powerful tool that is in the service of individual liberty. It was why the document itself states that it cannot be altered or amended in any manner.
    The 1700 Act of Settlement stated very clearly, when referring to the Bill of Rights, that the Bill is for ever. It is why, when you go to the government’s legislation website and search under 1688, the Bill is still to be found live on the statute book today.

    As the founding constitutional document of our current governance arrangements, it cannot be undone by the very institutions that it seeks to restrain. Clearly, a population correctly schooled in their constitutional history would present a solid, impenetrable defence against overreach, whether governmental or parliamentarian, by those who claim mastery.

    What is clear is that our forebears had lived experience of tyranny, and that experience gave them the wherewithal to protect future generations from repeating that experience.
    However, that knowledge and the tools to resist have suffered from what might be described as constitutional entropy; in brief, we forgot. Much like the Renaissance was the rediscovery of prior knowledge, today we have to relearn the basis upon which we agree to be governed, and be properly armed with the Bill of Rights.

    The knowledge that neither your government nor parliament is permitted to cause you harm is the most powerful weapon we can use, as it would undo much that they have done. How much legislation would stand up to scrutiny by a populace armed with an understanding of their constitutional rights? Likely little, if any of the more recent disgraceful bills passed as legislation were to answer the question of harm.

    Our past generations were not foolish people. In the Bill of Rights, they recognised the power of what they had achieved; likely why the bloodless coup of William & Mary came to be called the Glorious Revolution.

    Together with the Act of Settlement 1700, it placed those who seek to govern under an obligation to cause no harm; it is our obligation to see that they are held to their agreement.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

    Reply

Leave a Comment