Reform immigration plan

[MNW67]

That’s above my pay grade.

But does it really matter ?

I thought people might be interested in knowing a bit about where our protections come from. Many seem to think we have inherent protections and that somehow the "courts" can stop governments passing and enforcing laws. But this simply isn't the case. I wrote something pretty short and simple explaining the Supremacy of Parliament, which I thought people might find helpful as a starting point. But motorbiking has managed, once again, to confuse everybody with waffle, deflection and conflation.

 

[MNW67]

yep

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

I've highlighted the hurdles and added some more.

Since Nwgs2, has hinted. nobody cares.

So why do you keep sticking your nose in to something you don't care about.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I thought people might be interested in knowing a bit about where our protections come from. Many seem to think we have inherent protections and that somehow the "courts" can stop governments passing and enforcing laws. I wrote something pretty short and simple explaining the Supremacy of Parliament, which I thought people might find helpful as a starting point. But motorbiking has managed, once again, to confuse everybody with waffle, deflection and conflation.

There’s a lot of people in the GD who choose to conflate issues.

MBK is quite clear, the arguments are only between 3/4 people and always get a little bit too bitter.

I’m sure people enjoyed your post though. That’s not sarcasm

 

[noseall]

motorbiking has managed, once again, to confuse everybody with waffle, deflection and conflation.

Standard

 

[motorbiking]

I thought people might be interested in knowing a bit about where our protections come from. Many seem to think we have inherent protections and that somehow the "courts" can stop governments passing and enforcing laws. But this simply isn't the case. I wrote something pretty short and simple explaining the Supremacy of Parliament, which I thought people might find helpful as a starting point. But motorbiking has managed, once again, to confuse everybody with waffle, deflection and conflation.

That isn't quite what you did though.... What you originally said was this:

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.

Using phrases like "as far as I know" and "I don't know what would stop it" invites others to discuss it with you or give some examples. But the gist of the statement is - we mustn't leave the ECHR and other treaties, because they enshrine our human rights.

You then tried to pretend that you meant Parliament as a whole (commons and lords), but as we explored We only elect MPs and Reform have a chance of forming a government, but little chance of controlling parliament.
In discussions about reforming the HRA, you've held the position that it is no blocker to a government passing new laws and the additional burden is trivial. You now hold the view that the HRA is the cornerstone of our rights. It's actually relatively recent legislation, we had rights before it and we had rights before the ECHR.

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.

such protections are baked in to probably 50%+ of the statute on the books. 100s of offences that include phrases like "it is a defence to", "subsection 2 does no apply if". Not to mention that Human Rights are included in things like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, The Protection of Freedoms Act, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. etc.

You've argued, I confused everybody with waffle, deflection and conflation, when you've presented an over simplified view of the challenges a government would face to make Torture Legal.

I'll concede that you having an interest in a subject shouldn't be treated as a claim of knowledge and that I shouldn't have jumped on it as claim of fact, particularly given you used the term "as far as I know" and "I don't know what would stop it".

 

[MNW67]

That isn't quite what you did though.... What you originally said was this:

Using phrases like "as far as I know" and "I don't know what would stop it" invites others to discuss it with you or give some examples. But the gist of the statement is - we mustn't leave the ECHR and other treaties, because they enshrine our human rights.

You then tried to pretend that you meant Parliament as a whole (commons and lords), but as we explored We only elect MPs and Reform have a chance of forming a government, but little chance of controlling parliament.
In discussions about reforming the HRA, you've held the position that it is no blocker to a government passing new laws and the additional burden is trivial. You now hold the view that the HRA is the cornerstone of our rights. It's actually relatively recent legislation, we had rights before it and we had rights before the ECHR.


such protections are baked in to probably 50%+ of the statute on the books. 100s of offences that include phrases like "it is a defence to", "subsection 2 does no apply if". Not to mention that Human Rights are included in things like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, The Protection of Freedoms Act, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. etc.

You've argued, I confused everybody with waffle, deflection and conflation, when you've presented an over simplified view of the challenges a government would face to make Torture Legal.

I'll concede that you having an interest in a subject shouldn't be treated as a claim of knowledge and that I shouldn't have jumped on it as claim of fact, particularly given you used the term "as far as I know" and "I don't know what would stop it".

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't even begin to unpick that rant. It literally makes no sense.

 

[Highway Man]

How do they affect you?

Terribly

 

[blup]

What a worthwhile subject to get into.

Not a bus stop in sight

 

[blup]

Because Parliament is Supreme and can pass any law it wants.

Nonsense

 

[MNW67]

Nonsense

Can you explain a bit more please.

I haven't really understood motorbiking's arguments so far.

Hopefully, you can square this circle.

 

[motorbiking]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't even begin to unpick that rant. It literally makes no sense.

why do you think its a rant?

 

[MNW67]

Here is a very basic overview:

AI Overview

Yes, theoretically the UK Parliament can pass any law it wishes under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, as it is the supreme legal authority with the power to make or end any law. However, this power has practical limitations, such as the Sewel Convention (which suggests the UK Parliament should not legislate on devolved matters without consent from the devolved assemblies) and the lack of legal enforcement for human rights protections. Additionally, a future Parliament cannot be legally bound by the laws of a previous one, ensuring ongoing legislative flexibility.

The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty

• Supreme Authority: The UK Parliament is the highest legal authority; its word is law.
  
  
• Unlimited Scope: Parliament can make legislation on any subject matter and cannot have its laws declared unconstitutional by the courts.
  
  
• No Legal Limits: There are no existing legal limits on the power of the UK Parliament to make laws

 

[motorbiking]

Here is a very basic overview:

AI Overview

Yes, theoretically the UK Parliament can pass any law it wishes under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, as it is the supreme legal authority with the power to make or end any law. However, this power has practical limitations, such as the Sewel Convention (which suggests the UK Parliament should not legislate on devolved matters without consent from the devolved assemblies) and the lack of legal enforcement for human rights protections. Additionally, a future Parliament cannot be legally bound by the laws of a previous one, ensuring ongoing legislative flexibility.

The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty

• Supreme Authority: The UK Parliament is the highest legal authority; its word is law.
  
  
• Unlimited Scope: Parliament can make legislation on any subject matter and cannot have its laws declared unconstitutional by the courts.
  
  
• No Legal Limits: There are no existing legal limits on the power of the UK Parliament to make laws

You've got to start thinking for yourself and reading the references AI is using.

You might find this blog interesting https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/

 

[MNW67]

You've got to start thinking for yourself and reading the references AI is using.

You might find this blog interesting https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/

I have studied constitutional law and have used it in my work, you numptie. The AI overview was for you and blup to get you started.

 

[Odds]

The UK Supreme Court interprets and applies parliamentary laws but cannot strike them down, upholding parliamentary sovereignty; it can, however, issue "declarations of incompatibility" under the Human Rights Act, allowing Parliament to reconsider legislation if it conflicts with human rights. The Court acts as the final court of appeal, ensuring laws are correctly applied and that the government remains accountable to Parliament, which it can reinforce through judicial review.

Maybe this is why the Tories wanted to do away wiih the ECHR during Bre*it and 'Reform' have simply picked up the banner with promises to do the same? It's all well and good to say it'd speed up the deportation of terrorists but the wider implications do not auger well for future abuse of power.