Reform immigration plan

[MNW67]

then why don't you research it?

I don't need to. You seem to want me to guess what your arguments are rather than just explaining them.

 

[MNW67]

What a worthwhile subject to get into.

Was that sarcasm?

 

[motorbiking]

The Supremacy of Parliament.

thats a little dishonest. Your opening line was that without the HRA, ECHR etc. A future Reform government could make Torture legal.

 

[MNW67]

thats a little dishonest. Your opening line was that without the HRA, ECHR etc. A future Reform government could make Torture legal.

I've been talking about the Supremacy of Parliament. I don't know what you've been talking about.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Was that sarcasm?

Yes

 

[motorbiking]

I've been talking about the Supremacy of Parliament. I don't know what you've been talking about.

You've also previously argued that the HRA doesn't preclude a government from introducing laws that are incompatible with the act.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I've been talking about the Supremacy of Parliament. I don't know what you've been talking about.

You did post torture could be legal though. I asked you about it.

 

[MNW67]

Yes

It goes to the very core of what it means to be British!

 

[MNW67]

You did post torture could be legal though. I asked you about it.

It could be made legal. Because Parliament is Supreme and can pass any law it wants.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

It goes to the very core of what it means to be British!

It certainly does.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

It could be made legal. Because Parliament is Supreme and can pass any law it wants.

Is MBK saying it can’t/wont be made legal ?

 

[MNW67]

Is MBK saying it can’t/wont be made legal ?

We both agree that it isn't going to happen in practice. I don't believe for a minute that Reform would do that.

I am saying that it can be done in theory.

MBK is saying that it can't.

 

[motorbiking]

Is MBK saying it can’t/wont be made legal ?

His view:

So, returning to my hypothetical example which got hijacked yesterday.

There is very little inherent legal protection for our rights in this country. If we opt out of the ECHR etc. then Parliament can do whatever it wants. There is no overarching domestic protection.

So, to take an extreme example to highlight the principle. If a government wanted to bring in a law making torture legal, there is nothing to stop them. First they would need to pass the law through the House of Commons. If they didn't have enough votes in the House of Lords, they could use the Parliament Act. That would mean the government would have to wait for 12 months before the law became legal.

Once it was passed, there would be no way for the law to be challenged in the courts.

my view:

There is very little inherent legal protection for our rights in this country other than the safeguards of our constitution. If we opt out of the ECHR etc. then Parliament can do whatever it wants within the framework of our constitution and existing law. There is no overarching domestic protection other than our constitutional rights and all the laws they'd need to amend and treaties they'd need to serve notice on.

So, to take an extreme example to highlight the principle. If a government wanted to bring in a law making torture legal and had this as a manifesto pledge, there is nothing to stop them other than UNCAT and jus cogens and the Sovereign's right to dismiss a prime minister. First they would need to pass the law through the House of Commons. If they didn't have enough votes in the House of Lords, they could use the Parliament Act. Noting that only seven Bills have become Acts under this procedure. That would mean the government would have to wait for 12 months before the law became legal. Providing they are not dismissed.

Once it was passed, there would be no way for the law to be challenged in the courts. Other than the courts ability to interpret it via legal precedent forcing constant amendments

You see how it reads rather differently, when you look at it in more depth.

You also have to consider the alternative:
No government of the day should restrict the power of a future democratically elected government. They tell us what they will do and we vote for them.
The HRA ignored this.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

His view:

my view:

That’s above my pay grade.

But does it really matter ?

 

[motorbiking]

We both agree that it isn't going to happen in practice.

yep

I am saying that it can be done in theory.

and I've said if things were different, things would be different.

MBK is saying that it can't.

I've highlighted the hurdles and added some more.

Since Nwgs2, has hinted. nobody cares.