Interesting read.
Particularly the bit that shows that failure to comply with the Act does not immediately mean withdrawal from Europe, but the EU can suspend the voting rights of non compliant members.
Also seems that Wales has the Act embedded separately.
My bet? Kicked into the long grass for consultation.
Tom told you yesterday to stop with the sniping.
Warning issued. Everyone calm down.
Can we not comment on the quality of an opponent’s argument.
One of the clashes between the two of us is absolutism/legalism versus flexibility/politics.
For your commentary…
A consideration of the legal position outlining the Sewell Convention.
The above has a well argued consideration of the clash between Parliamentary Supremacy and political possibility.
I particularly like part of the conclusion that expresses my views concisely:
It is worth closing by re-emphasising that the Sewel Convention is just that: a convention, not a law. (It has been proposed by the Smith Commission that the Convention should be recognised in statute, but, as I have argued elsewhere, it is not clear that this would fundamentally alter the status of the Convention — although it would give it added political gravitas.) The UK Government could therefore, without acting unlawfully, ignore the Sewel Convention. But however lawful that would be, it would be unconstitutional. That might sound hollow: if a court is not going to prevent the Government from proceeding, why should it be concerned about the niceties of the Sewel Convention? The answer is that conventions, to the extent that they have binding force, acquire it through the political realm. And it is hard to think of a convention that is more laden with political significance — and invested with political clout — than the Sewel Convention. At a time when no exaggeration is involved in saying that the Union hangs by a thread, it would be a foolish Prime Minister who cast aside a convention that institutionalises respect for devolved autonomy in order to implement the proposed human-rights changes. All of which suggests that, for all that the Human Rights Act is not legally entrenched, it may be far more deeply politically entrenched within our multi-layered constitutional order than the UK Government has so far appreciated.
A consideration of current political possibilities
The SNP has only one bordered identity and if its MPs in Westminster become another feeble 50 – sidelined as dangerous, or seen as politically hazardous to the winning majority government – this will merely fuel the idea that the only way Scotland can win greater independence is to become independent.
With Nicola Sturgeon already threatening the system by ignoring her party’s numerical impotence and declaring Scotland’s democratic voice cannot be silenced, any attempted rerun of constitutional autocracy by Downing Street will end up doing only one thing.
Scotland in this election was cynically set against England, and vice-versa – and if nothing is offered to the party that controls Holyrood and now overwhelmingly dominates Scotland’s representation in Westminster, then forget the exit of the UK from Europe. Scotland’s exit from the UK will soon become a done deal.
For the rest of us bored with this two-hander:
I’m amused by some of the not-very-serious discussionsof London seceding from the UK, considering that it’s an island of red amidst a sea of blue. I say we go for it - we could build the economy around the financial industry and being a tax haven, like a kind of Luxembourg-on-Thames. And we’re keeping the Palace of Westminster, Dave and company - you can follow the BBC’s example and go build a new capital in Salford.
(No agreement yet as to whether Croydon is included in “London”. Could be contentious.)
What about the airports?
ratio of thread, 55%
Croydon will be the DMZ for exchanging political prisoners.
London will keep Heathrow and London City (and Biggin Hill, FWIW). Gatwick is negotiable. Luton and Stansted - who cares, really?
That only leaves Gove with the shallow argument that our courts are shackled because they are bound to follow the decisions of the European court of human rights. But that argument runs into two fundamental problems. First, the HRA only obliges our courts to “take into account” judgments of the European court; they are not bound by them. Second, it is not the HRA that obliges the UK to respond to the judgments of the European court. It is Article 46(1) of the ECHR itself.
Article 46 states that: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” The UK signed up to that international obligation when it signed the ECHR in the 1950s. Repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the UK’s obligations under Article 46. The only way for the Tories to achieve what they want is for the UK to pull out of the ECHR and, as a consequence, out of the Council of Europe.