Reform immigration plan

[motorbiking]

Well that might be the limit. As they are the supreme power, they probably cannot abolish themselves.

What is your point, though.

that this

Your vague waffle doesn't cut through with somebody who actually understands the legal principles.

might have been doing a bit too much heavy lifting.

 

[MNW67]

that this

might have been doing a bit too much heavy lifting.

Typical waffle.

You are such a numptie sometimes

 

[motorbiking]

Typical waffle.

You are such a numptie sometimes

The point I made is that Parliament can pass any law it wants and cannot be challenged.

which we know isn't true.

 

[MNW67]

which we know isn't true.

Tell me how?

 

[motorbiking]

Tell me how?

Are you familiar with the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949?
These acts limited the power of the Lords to Veto various Acts.
Are you aware of the Bills excluded?
Among others, Bills prolonging the length of a Parliament beyond five years

So the Lords have the power to Veto such an act.

 

[MNW67]

Are you familiar with the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949?
These acts limited the power of the Lords to Veto various Acts.
Are you aware of the Bills excluded?
Among others, Bills prolonging the length of a Parliament beyond five years

So the Lords have the power to Veto such an act.

I know that

But the Lords is part of Parliament.

If Parliament passes a law, it cannot be challenged.

 

[noseall]

before you get so upset, why not think back to how it worked before HRA?

When the UK went begging to the West Indies, Pakistan/India etc for workers to prop up the UK economy?

 

[motorbiking]

When the UK went begging to the West Indies, Pakistan/India etc for workers to prop up the UK economy?

was that 1997?

 

[noseall]

was that 1997?

It was pre - human rights act.

 

[motorbiking]

I know that

But the Lords is part of Parliament.

Good grief.

If Parliament passes a law, it cannot be challenged.

apart from any bill to extend the current term beyond 5 years.

I don't see why not. Parliament could definitely extend the current term.

which we know isn't true.

 

[motorbiking]

It was pre - human rights act.

yes or no?

 

[motorbiking]

So back on topic

I am not so sure. You might be surprised how little inherent protection there is under British law. As far as I know, if we leave the ECHR and the other international treaties mentioned, such as the one banning torture, then there would be very little protection left. Parliament has the right to make any laws it wants. If Reform wanted to pass a law making torture legal in the UK and had the numbers in Parliament, I don't know what would stop it being legal.

You have missed my point. It was an extreme example to highlight the limits of the inherent protections we have here in the UK. If we leave the ECHR and the treaty banning torture, there is nothing in theory to stop a government passing a law to make torture legal. It was a reply to noseall, who said we would always have human rights in the UK, even if we left these international treaties.

The upper house would amend it and people would vote them out next time round. Unless by some crazy situation, people actually wanted to be tortured and kept voting for more.

In fact one of the down sides a Reform Government will have is lack of support in the Lords.

 

[MNW67]

But the Lords is part of Parliament.

Good grief.

You seem to be claiming that the House of Lords is not part of Parliament?

You seem to have the understanding of our constitutional arrangements of a child.

apart from any bill to extend the current term beyond 5 years.

If Parliament passes the law, the term can be extended.

 

[noseall]

before you get so upset, why not think back to how it worked before HRA?

Yes, we used to import foreigners in their thousands.Whats new?

 

[motorbiking]

You seem to be claiming that the House of Lords is not part of Parliament?

You seem to have the understanding of our constitutional arrangements of a child.



If Parliament passes the law, the term can be extended.

You think the lords would not veto such a law?