Reform immigration plan

[Deleted member 317777]

On whether Starmer is a liar or not... if he says it's a Welsh choirboy, it's a Welsh choirboy.

Has he ever told the truth….

Jimmy’s mate can’t be trusted.

 

[motorbiking]

Csmeron’s coalition brought in fixed term parliaments, May didn’t even bother to pass a law giving effect to brexhit. But I agree the courts would regard fundamental human rights as protected even if parliament voted otherwise. It boils down to whether the police the army and the courts can stand firm.

and of course Jus Cogens

We'd also be on all sorts of sanctions and export controls like other rogue states. Not to mention France would start pushing back British Refugees fleeing torture

 

[MNW67]

and of course Jus Cogens

We'd also be on all sorts of sanctions and export controls like other rogue states. Not to mention France would start pushing back British Refugees fleeing torture

So, you seem to have conceded that it would be possible for a government to pass a law making torture legal. Also, you seem to have conceded that it could not be challenged in the domestic courts. You have now moved on to the international consequences. Well done. Maybe, in your own chaotic way, you are starting to get a handle on how to analyse these type of questions.

 

[blup]

Under which laws or provisions. The common law? Magna Carta? Parliament is the Supreme legal authority.



The police and army would very likely have a role. But the courts can only apply the law.

I think it’s called common law, the one the judges make up, like murder and not being able to r ape your wife in marriage

 

[blup]

Jus Cogens

Is he Alma Cogans lad?

 

[noseall]

A concise summary of a biking argument.

Agree. The bloke is not well.

 

[motorbiking]

Agree. The bloke is not well.

So keen to argue, you forget which side of the fence you've already positioned yourself:

Nonsense you may think it is. However, The UK will always afford its inhabitants human rights. The UK will always have human rights lawyers, litigation and costs.

Are you now saying a Reform Government could introduce a law making Torture legal?

 

[noseall]

So keen to argue, you forget which side of the fence you've already positioned yourself:

Are you now saying a Reform Government could introduce a law making Torture legal?

You need to seek help.

 

[motorbiking]

You need to seek help.

Oh dear Nosenout is embarrassed, so he dodges the question that makes him look silly.. again.

You presumably think making Torture legal would be against the Human Rights that you are confident would never be revoked?

 

[motorbiking]

So, you seem to have conceded that it would be possible for a government to pass a law making torture legal. Also, you seem to have conceded that it could not be challenged in the domestic courts. You have now moved on to the international consequences. Well done. Maybe, in your own chaotic way, you are starting to get a handle on how to analyse these type of questions.

Don't assume the word "and" means the original arguments aren't valid. On top of the international issues, we also have the Sewel Convention.

I know you are trying to argue that we don't have much in the way of protection other than the HRA etc. But it's simply not the case. All governments operate within a framework of constitutional convention, something you dismissed as waffle, probably because you didn't fancy the leg work of researching it. We had Human rights before the act, we'll have them after. They may be called something else.

 

[MNW67]

Don't assume the word "and" means the original arguments aren't valid. On top of the international issues, we also have the Sewel Convention.

I know you are trying to argue that we don't have much in the way of protection other than the HRA etc. But it's simply not the case. All governments operate within a framework of constitutional convention, something you dismissed as waffle, probably because you didn't fancy the leg work of researching it. We had Human rights before the act, we'll have them after. They may be called something else.

The Sewel Convention is clutching at straws. But nice Googling.

Tell me which of our constitutional conventions would stop it becoming law. You claim to know, so just spit it out. Don't give me more vague waffle and then tell me to go and research it myself.

And don't tell me what I am trying to argue. I have stated that I am discussing a principle of constitutional law, which is a topic that has always interested me. You didn't need to reply. But once you have got involved, don't try and change my question.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

The Sewel Convention is clutching at straws. But nice Googling.

Tell me which of our constitutional conventions would stop it becoming law. You claim to know, so just spit it out. Don't give me more vague waffle and then tell me to go and research it myself.

And don't tell me what I am trying to argue. I have stated that I am discussing a principle of constitutional law, which is a topic that has always interested me. You didn't need to reply. But once you have got involved, don't try and change my question.

I’m a bit lost, what are you two arguing about ?

 

[motorbiking]

And don't tell me what I am trying to argue. I have stated that I am discussing a principle of constitutional law, which is a topic that has always interested me.

then why don't you research it?

 

[MNW67]

I’m a bit lost, what are you two arguing about ?

The Supremacy of Parliament.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

The Supremacy of Parliament.

What a worthwhile subject to get into.