Are you now clear about the total separation between the Council of Europe and the European Union, and between the ECJ and ECHR?
This personal sniping will stop or it will be Warned.
It does nothing to move the discussion forward and it appears as though it is intended to provoke your opponent into violating board rules.
[ /Moderating ]
What is UDI?
And what if what her ministers “advise” is different from what the people want? Does she statutorily have to wait out the whole 5 years for a new Parliament? Can she dismiss the present PM and appoint a new one more friendly to what the people want?
Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
Not negotiated or requested, but just taken without consent of the controlling power.
The Queen can only act on the advice of her PM. She must accept that advice so long as it is constitutional. However unpopular a government becomes, so long as it has the support of the Commons it can continue until the date of the next required election, although in some cases it can go voluntarily.
Another constitutional anomaly. Scottish Questions takes place before PM Questions. The current rules state that the opposition Secretary of state has six questions and the SNP will have one. So the single Scottish Labour MP will have six times as many questions as the 56 SNP MPs. Can that be justified?
It is about as justified as all the other idiocy that has everything to do with a system that was designed for two parties and needs reformed.
I had such high hopes at the beginning of the thread as well.
You had “utter bastard” and “disgrace” right, but teachers already educate children. What Gove was doing was to impose bizarre and impractical policies that would have had no benefit whatsoever to either children or the educational system for no reason other than his antiquated conception of what school should be as viewed through rose-coloured glasses. He was to education what Donald Rumsfeld was to military strategy - the Dunning-Kruger effect personified.
Now he’s free to screw up Justice. I note that he’s expressed support for hanging, although I doubt even he will try to actually bring that back…
I would imagine they would negotiate a more sensible divvying out of questions.
One would hope so. But we shall have to wait and see. David Mundell has been allowed to imply that removing the HRA from UK Law would also remove it from Scottish Law, which is incorrect. Politicians tend to assume more power than they actually have. I imagine that he would prefer half a dozen anti-SNP softball questions from the sole Scottish Labour MP, rather than real questions from the 56.
Peter Bone has just been on the Victoria Derbyshire show selling the same line as Steophan was last night. It seems to be straight from a Tory briefing written wearing rose coloured specs! Both Victoria and the Human Rights Lawyer made him look confused and under briefed as he was forced to admit that the ECHR could still make decisions if the HRA was removed from UK law and tat these decisions could place the UK on jeopardy internationally.
My attitude is that the government, not you, will decide which powers should be devolved and which will be retained by Westminster, and there’s very little in the way of legal constraint as to which powers go where.
If the SNP refuses to negotiate with the Tories, and come to a deal where the Scots support the Government in the rest of the UK, I wouldn’t expect much movement on devolution at all.
I’m not sure what part of my attitude will destroy the Union. It is a fact, not an attitude, that al devolved powers are in the gift of Westminster and could be recalled by any central government. My only attitude is that, should significant powers be devolved, there need to be a system of EVEL to ensure England remains an equal power in the Union.
By putting the ECHR into domestic legislation, we comply. Any rulings from Strasbourg are advisory, nothing more, and do not have to be followed. The HRA binds us to those advisory rulings above and beyond our obligations, and that’s what needs to be removed.
Your world view is hide bound and legalistic.
There is a difference between what is strictly possible and what is politically possible.
Westminster could row back on Devolution but would have to face the shit storm that followed.
In all likelihood Cameron will buy off Scottish sentiment by implementing considerably more devolution than the Smith recommendations. We shall soon see.
Fora and message boards in Scotland are aghast at the anti-Scottish bias in Press and people in England. It is driving the people apart.
I now know why you are following this line because I saw Peter Bone this morning making exactly the same points. I assume the ideas are from a Party briefing. The human rights lawyer discussing it with him pointed out where he was wrong and eventually he had to admit that the UK would still be in breach of the Convention even with the words brought into British law and that eventually the UK would have to leave the Council of Europe or be thrown out with all its ramifications.
The only judge of compliance with the Convention is the Grand Chamber of the ECHR.
I’ve never claimed otherwise. You’re the one that keeps claiming that Parliament can’t change things in Scotland, when the law says otherwise.
As I’ve repeatedly said, there will be a deal where the SNP gets a lot of what it wants in exchange for supporting the Government on other matters.
There’s far less anti-Scottish feeling down here than there is anti-English feeling up there. Mostly we’d like the Scots to stop punching themselves in the face and blaming us.
And that judgement is advisory. I’m sure the Government will pay all due heed to any such advice.
Should we be judged that we are in contravention of a Treaty or we abrogate it, that affects standing in the world, and in Europe and also acts as a spur to other countries to break their obligations. No country has ever done that and I don’t believe that the current government has the heart to do it.
The ECHR will remain embedded in Northern Ireland ands Scotland, so the effect will be limited to England and Wales.
I suspect that when the situation is addressed in five years time, little material will have changed, save that the oath to justice will be longer and more expensive in England and Wales tan it is currently
Parliament is supreme but constrained by reality and by politics.
Parliamentary supremacy did not stop Irish independence nor decolonisation.
Parliamentary supremacy has never enabled the full implementation of any programme of government MacMillan- ‘events, dear boy, events…’
Let us look at HRA and NI. In the Good Friday Agreement, the government agreed to integrate the HRA into the text and apply it in NI to ensure Sinn Fein that justice would be done outside the British system. Now Parliament good renege on this, upset Sinn Fein, the Irish government, the US who mediated it and international opinion. Possible but unlikely.
Similarly with the current devolution package for Scotland. Should there be row back, the chance of a successful referendum would increase in response because of bad faith because of government assurance during and after the campaign. Possible but unlikely.
The Scotland Office (part of the last Government) points out that the HRA is
“built into the 1998 Scotland Act [and] cannot be removed [by Westminster].”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scotland-exempt-from-tories-human-rights-act-axe-1-3559633
Explain that!