Reform immigration plan

[MNW67]

So back on topic


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.

Again, you are confusing Parliament with the House of Commons.

 

[MNW67]

You think the lords would not veto such a law?

A completely different point.

But at least you now seem to have got your brain in gear.

 

[Notch7]

In fact one of the down sides a Reform Government

The major downside of a Reform govt is that it would be a right wing populist propaganda govt under the influence of the wealthy in the interests of the wealthy.

We had a grifting liar as leader in 2019, we don’t need another one.

 

[motorbiking]

Again, you are confusing Parliament with the House of Commons.

A completely different point.

But at least you now seem to have got your brain in gear.

I'm merely suggesting that our constitutional conventions would prevent a Reform Government doing as they please, if the HRA was repealed.

If via some magic, the lords and commons were aligned and voted to remove the rights of the citizen to get rid of them then the normal rules apply, that have applied for centuries. i.e. there are more of us than them.

The idea is nonsense.

 

[MNW67]

I'm merely suggesting that our constitutional conventions would prevent a Reform Government doing as they please, if the HRA was repealed.

If via some magic, the lords and commons were aligned and voted to remove the rights of the citizen to get rid of them then the normal rules apply, that have applied for centuries. i.e. there are more of us than them.

The idea is nonsense.

That is why I said it was an extreme hypothetical example to demonstrate a legal principle.

 

[motorbiking]

That is why I said it was an extreme hypothetical example to demonstrate a legal principle.

that being that if it was completely different, it would be completely different.

 

[MNW67]

that being that if it was completely different, it would be completely different.

No.

It was a starting point in an attempt to help people understand our constitutional settlement and where the sources of our protections come from.

But as with every discussion you are involved in, you manage to misunderstand, deflect, conflate and talk boll@x at every turn.

 

[motorbiking]

No.

It was a starting point in an attempt to help people understand our constitutional settlement and where the sources of our protections come from.

But as with every discussion you are involved in, you manage to misunderstand, deflect, conflate and talk boll@x at every turn.

Nonsense you were scaremongering.

 

[MNW67]

Nonsense you were scaremongering.

As with every discussion you are involved in, you manage to misunderstand, deflect, conflate and talk boll@x at every turn.

See my post #79

No. I can't see it happening.

It was just an extreme example to highlight a legal principle.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

But as with every discussion you are involved in, you manage to misunderstand, deflect, conflate and talk boll@x at every turn.

Now that is a bit rich!

Wow.

 

[motorbiking]

This is a good example of misunderstanding, deflecting, conflating and talking boll@x at every turn.

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.

As it turns out, it makes no difference. Parliament is sovereign and can do as it pleases... Providing there is a complete breakdown in the established constitutional processes.

 

[MNW67]

This is a good example of misunderstanding, deflecting, conflating and talking boll@x at every turn.


As it turns out, it makes no difference. Parliament is sovereign and can do as it pleases... Providing there is a complete breakdown in the established constitutional processes.

There is nothing in my post which is incorrect. It seems you just don't understand it.

 

[motorbiking]

There is nothing in that post which is incorrect. It seems you just don't understand it.

you're a 100% sure.

 

[MNW67]

you're a 100% sure.

I am pretty sure. But anyone can make a mistake. So, please point out the mistakes.

 

[Notch7]

Parliament is sovereign and can do as it pleases..

Boris Johnson prorogued parliament.