Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservative Leadership Elections

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

  • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    No attitude - simple factual answer
    When plain language bills were first introduced to the New York State legislature, the legislators long opposed them using just your terms. They couldn't understand -- or more likely refused to understand -- that their attitude made the voters believe that they were hiding something....

    Of course, they were hiding something.

    So basically, your average British voter -- you know, the person who is expected to actually vote on these issues, either directly or indirectly -- is unable to answer the questions that I raised in Post #173:

    Originally posted by slick_miester View 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.
    If you think that I'm merely being pedantic, think again. Had me a professor of business law, and among her demands was one wherein our explnanations of legal questions should be framed so that "my mother will be able to understand it," bearing in mind that my professor's mother was an immigrant woman who'd enjoyed only a limited degree of formal education. It turned out to be a good exercise: built strong analytical and comprehension skills, and forced us students to cut directly to the heart of the matter.

    How would you explain British constitutional issues to, say, a Liverpool football hooligan? If you can do that, then you will have genuinely accomplished something.
    Last edited by slick_miester; 14 Jun 19, 11:28.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • Mark,

      The following may provide some help about questions you raise :

      "In the UK, the lack of formal procedures requiring special majorities points up the ease of constitutional amendment. The obvious advantage in such a system is that it allows a democratically elected majority in the legislature to act swiftly to address unanticipated external threats as well as updating/amending laws to reflect changed social/moral attitudes."


      https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/constitution...nal-amendment/

      As a side note about wether UK use or not a Constitution :

      "Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution."

      https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/si...to-the-uk.html

      And finally about ECHR :

      "Although a declaration of incompatibility does not place any legal obligation on the government to amend or repeal legislation, it sends a clear message to legislators that they should change the law to make it compatible with the human rights set out in the Convention. In giving effect to rights contained in the ECHR the Court must take account of any decision of the ECtHR in Strasbourg. No national court should "without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law" (Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26)."

      https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/th...nd-europe.html

      Comment


      • Both candidates in the final two will be expected to pay £150k towards the hustings. After many regular donors stopped making donations in disgust at May's policies Party funds are low.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • Does any one expect anything new from this? I mean are there any kind of expectations of what any of the candidates/prospects could achieve?
          It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
            Does any one expect anything new from this? I mean are there any kind of expectations of what any of the candidates/prospects could achieve?
            After three years of May as leader the party faces wipe out at the polls. At the Euros they only polled 9%. They are facing a similar situation to Kim Campbellís Tories in Canada in the 90s. Most of their core and normally most loyal voters have transferred their support to the Brexit party.

            After the disaster of the May years it is hoped that a new leader will be able to revitalise the party and win back its former core supporters and thus stop the anti Semitic communist Corbyn becoming PM.

            Of the candidates still in the race only two, Boris and Raab represent a change from Mayís policies. Of those two Boris is far more likely to win. So in reality it is a choice between Boris and Corbyn.

            So in short yes it does make a difference.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

              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?
              Metryll answered that with this;

              Originally posted by Metryll View Post

              And finally about ECHR :

              "Although a declaration of incompatibility does not place any legal obligation on the government to amend or repeal legislation, it sends a clear message to legislators that they should change the law to make it compatible with the human rights set out in the Convention. In giving effect to rights contained in the ECHR the Court must take account of any decision of the ECtHR in Strasbourg. No national court should "without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law" (Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26)."

              https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/th...nd-europe.html
              That means that because the Good Friday Agreement ties future legislation within the boundaries of the ECHR it is a Constitutional document, or so many thought.

              "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

                Metryll answered that with this;


                That means that because the Good Friday Agreement ties future legislation within the boundaries of the ECHR it is a Constitutional document, or so many thought.
                Even simpler - because it defines how NI will be governed and the roles the British and Irish governments will or will not play it is ipso facto a constitutional matter as is any thing that modifies how it works.
                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

                  Even simpler - because it defines how NI will be governed and the roles the British and Irish governments will or will not play it is ipso facto a constitutional matter as is any thing that modifies how it works.
                  And yet it seems that it isn't because otherwise a no deal Brexit would not be possible. In effect the UK and Ireland signed an international agreement. The people of Ireland agreed, by means of a referendum, to change out constitution as part of that process. The quid pro quo from the UK side was, amongst other things, that the land border between the UK and Ireland remained open. The UK has effectively ripped up the agreement with Brexit, playing into the hands of those on the Nationalist side who were opposed to the agreement because they said that the British just can't be trusted.
                  "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


                  • This link from Wikipedia has a section about the constitutional significance in the Uk context. I think it is worth quoting in full;

                    Because the Good Friday Agreement binds the British government on several points of law in Northern Ireland, it has de facto become a part of Constitution of the United Kingdom. Legal commentator David Allen Green described it as "a core constitutional text of the UK, and of Ireland [...] of more everyday importance than hallowed instruments such as, say, Magna Carta of 1215 or the 1689 Bill of Rights".[28]

                    Because the Agreement commits the government to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights in law and allows Northern Irish residents access to the European Court of Human Rights, it required enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. Consequently, the Agreement was a significant factor preventing the repeal of that Act and its replacement with the proposed British Bill of Rights that Prime Minister David Cameron had promised.[28]

                    The Agreement also makes reference to the UK and Ireland as "partners in the European Union", and it was argued in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the Agreement meant that the consent of Northern Ireland's voters was required to leave the European Union (Brexit). The UK Supreme Court unanimously held that this was not the case, but the Agreement has nevertheless strongly shaped the form of Brexit.

                    During the negotiations on Britain's planned 2019 withdrawal from the European Union, the EU produced a position paper on its concerns regarding support of the Good Friday Agreement by the UK during Brexit. The position paper addresses topics including the avoidance of a hard border, the North-South cooperation between Ireland and Northern Ireland, the birthright of all of the people of Northern Ireland (as set out in the Agreement), and the Common Travel Area.[29] Anyone born in Northern Ireland, and thus entitled to an Irish passport by the Good Friday Agreement, will also be able to retain EU citizenship after Brexit.[30] Under the European Union negotiating directives for Brexit, the UK was asked to satisfy the other EU members that these topics had been addressed in order to progress to the second stage of Brexit negotiations. In order to protect North-South co-operation and avoid controls on the Irish border, the UK agreed to protect the Agreement in all its parts and "in the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."[28]
                    "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


                    • Decision day today.
                      The only candidate telling the truth was eliminated yesterday.
                      The fantasy that is a no deal Brexit which doesn't wreck the UK is still on track.
                      "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
                        Decision day today.
                        The only candidate telling the truth was eliminated yesterday.
                        The fantasy that is a no deal Brexit which doesn't wreck the UK is still on track.
                        There seems to be a growing consensus that Rory Stewart would make a great leader - of the Labour party.

                        A Tory PM should be more concerned with the Tory party than with a no deal Brexit.

                        A Corbyn government would be infinitely worse than a no-deal.

                        Comment


                        • Well to date Uncle Fester is still hanging in there but only just. Lurch has dropped out. The latest BBC photo has Gove looking remarkably like ET whilst Boris looks like a minor disreputable character from one of Surtee's Jorrocks novels. Hunt just looks like a dodgy politician from a 1980s US mini series with a smile that beams ringing insincerity.
                          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


                          • We should be down to the final two by close of play today.

                            Boris is virtually certain to be one. The second could be Gove or Hunt depending on where Javidís vote ends up. Would prefer a Boris vs Javid final but think Javid will be knocked out at lunchtime.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              We should be down to the final two by close of play today.

                              Boris is virtually certain to be one. The second could be Gove or Hunt depending on where Javidís vote ends up. Would prefer a Boris vs Javid final but think Javid will be knocked out at lunchtime.
                              Yes, Javid was in the firing line alright and it's down to three.
                              "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

                                Yes, Javid was in the firing line alright and it's down to three.
                                And then there were two and Gove is out.

                                Boris vs Hunt should be a lot calmer and less damaging than Boris vs Gove would have been.
                                There is a lot of bad blood between Boris and Gove but I think Hunt is too bland to have really annoyed anyone.
                                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X