Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservative Leadership Elections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Don't be daft - elections are not constitutional changes - all over the world constitutional changes usually require a super majority
    Not in the UK
    Ooh! Two John Bulls are going to slug it out over a hot-button political issue. How Septic.

    All kidding aside, since the UK does not sport a "proper" constitution, how are constitutional amendments effected over there?
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • There are no such things as constitutional amendments in the UK,because the UK has not such a thing as a US constitution . Countries on the continent have such things, but no one cares about ,people in Europe are realistic enough to know that a constitution is only a collection of meaningless words,while Americans are in awe for their constitution .

      Comment


      • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

        Ooh! Two John Bulls are going to slug it out over a hot-button political issue. How Septic.

        All kidding aside, since the UK does not sport a "proper" constitution, how are constitutional amendments effected over there?
        We do have a proper constitution and contrary to received wisdom it is written. It is just not written down in one single document but is contained in a series of documents written over a period of about 900 years and includes Magna Carta, The Forest Charter and the Bill of Rights all of which were plundered for parts of the US constitution. It now contains the various devolution acts. Parliament has to vote to change any part of it and referendi (at one time an alien concept in Britain) usually indicate to Parliament which way the people are thinking - at that moment. However it is worth pointing out that in the past these have required a super majority to recommend a change from the status quo - look at some of the early UK devolution ones. Minority or marginal majority governments have not in the past been so bone headed as to attempt constitutional change.
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

          We do have a proper constitution and contrary to received wisdom it is written. It is just not written down in one single document but is contained in a series of documents written over a period of about 900 years and includes Magna Carta, The Forest Charter and the Bill of Rights all of which were plundered for parts of the US constitution. It now contains the various devolution acts. Parliament has to vote to change any part of it and referendi (at one time an alien concept in Britain) usually indicate to Parliament which way the people are thinking - at that moment. However it is worth pointing out that in the past these have required a super majority to recommend a change from the status quo - look at some of the early UK devolution ones. Minority or marginal majority governments have not in the past been so bone headed as to attempt constitutional change.
          The Liberal government that attempted a constitutional change before WWI: limitation of the powers of the Lords and Home Rule for Ireland,was a minority government: it had lost its majority in January 1910.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            Ohh. :surprised: I did not know that the participation was that high. I guess that Brexit's opponents can't say that a form of quorum wasn't reached.
            But they can claim the margin was not statiscally significant.

            In science, a single experiment with a result of 2% one way or the other, would not normally be accepted as decisive or even indicative.

            Then again politics is not science obviously


            High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MarkV View Post
              Minority or marginal majority governments have not in the past been so bone headed as to attempt constitutional change.
              John Major forced through the Maastricht Treaty with a majority of only 18.
              No super referendum or even any referendum required for that major constitutional change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                John Major forced through the Maastricht Treaty with a majority of only 18.
                No super referendum or even any referendum required for that major constitutional change.
                And perhaps there should have been. By today's standards 18 is a substantial majority!
                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                  We do have a proper constitution and contrary to received wisdom it is written.
                  I understand that -- hence my use of quotation marks about the word "proper" in my previous post. My question is, since the UK does not boast a unified document entitled "constitution" that contains therein rules for amending a constitution, how do British lawmakers and voters know 1) how to decide which issues are constitutional in nature and which are not, and 2) how the processes for enacting potentially constitutional bills differ from those bills which are not deemed to be constitutional in nature.
                  Last edited by slick_miester; 14 Jun 19, 10:35. Reason: I can't spell.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    I understand that -- hence my use of quotation marks about the word "proper" in my previous post. My question is, since the UK does not boast a unified document entitled "constitution" that contains therein rules for amending a constitution, how do British lawmakers and voters know 1) hot to decide which issues are constitutional in nature and which are not, and 2) how the processes for enacting potentially constitutional bills differ from those bills which are not deemed to be constitutional in nature.
                    That's why a case was taken in relation to the Good Friday Agreement in relation to Brexit as it was considered a constitutional document.
                    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                      That's why a case was taken in relation to the Good Friday Agreement in relation to Brexit as it was considered a constitutional document.
                      Read the whole article from pillar to post, so now I'm going to go on down the rabbit hole and ask a question (bearing in mind that I probably already know the answer but I want my sanity confirmed nonetheless): what made the Good Friday Agreement constitutional, and how was the GFA's constitutionality determined at the time?
                      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                        I understand that -- hence my use of quotation marks about the word "proper" in my previous post. My question is, since the UK does not boast a unified document entitled "constitution" that contains therein rules for amending a constitution, how do British lawmakers and voters know 1) hot to decide which issues are constitutional in nature and which are not, and 2) how the processes for enacting potentially constitutional bills differ from those bills which are not deemed to be constitutional in nature.
                        There are legal textbooks which whilst not legal documents in their own right will point the scholar, legislator, lawyer to the documents that matter. The House of Commons library contains an impressive number. University College London has a constitutional department who can usually be asked and the House of Lords contains a number of lawyers who are specialists in such matters. At the end of the day we do have a Supreme Court whose members are not political appointees who can and have passed judgement on such matters
                        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                          There are legal textbooks which whilst not legal documents in their own right will point the scholar, legislator, lawyer to the documents that matter. The House of Commons library contains an impressive number. University College London has a constitutional department who can usually be asked and the House of Lords contains a number of lawyers who are specialists in such matters. At the end of the day we do have a Supreme Court whose members are not political appointees who can and have passed judgement on such matters
                          So it would seem that the designation of a particular issue as constitutional, and the means by which it may be enacted, are not readily comprehensible to your Average Bloke in Blighty. Us Silly Septics here have Article V:

                          The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
                          If you can read, then you can comprehend that rather easily. Is there a British analogue that's so accessible to the citizens at large -- or is one compelled to query the Law Lords for any and every possibly constitutional question?
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            So it would seem that the designation of a particular issue as constitutional, and the means by which it may be enacted, are not readily comprehensible to your Average Bloke in Blighty. Us Silly Septics here have Article V:



                            If you can read, then you can comprehend that rather easily. Is there a British analogue that's so accessible to the citizens at large -- or is one compelled to query the Law Lords for any and every possibly constitutional question?
                            There are guides written at the level that fifth formers would read at GCSE level - that's 15 -16 year olds
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                              There are guides written at the level that fifth formers would read at GCSE level - that's 15 -16 year olds
                              That's the kind of snooty attitude against which Hutcheson or Hume railed, I can no longer recall which. It's also the kind of opinion proffered by jurists who don't want "dirty laymen" (yeah, I saw a judge call a defendant's mother that when she asked a question about a point of law in court) seeing that all that there is behind their curtain is a man.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                                That's the kind of snooty attitude against which Hutcheson or Hume railed, I can no longer recall which. It's also the kind of opinion proffered by jurists who don't want "dirty laymen" (yeah, I saw a judge call a defendant's mother that when she asked a question about a point of law in court) seeing that all that there is behind their curtain is a man.
                                No attitude - simple factual answer
                                Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                                Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X