.@nicholaswatt reports that an ally of Boris Johnson and fmr cabinet minister is suggesting there’s a 3 year timetable for the ‘Bring Back Boris’ movement.
It's always worth putting a bet on another Tory leadership challenge within 18 months. I should have learnt that by now.
What we are witnessing is Sunak refusing to leave the EHCR and other international bodies and challenging those in his party who want us to align with Russia and Belarus as the only countries outside international law
On this he has my support and maybe it is better to take the right on now, as if he does win the vote with just a handful of his mps voting against then he will be in a more secure position - of course if the right decide to commit 'hari - kari' then it is all over for the conservative party as we know it
Russia is rapidly expanding its territory and is about to win a major war in Europe. Meanwhile its economy is growing healthily and its people are infused with patriotic fervour, and they know that a woman is a woman and a good cigar is a smoke
Here in the west we cower pathetically from the likes of Barbados as they demand “$5.4 trillion” in reparations and some of the leading universities of the western world say it’s ok to ask for genocide on the Jews but don’t misgender anyone!
We are pitiful. Putin is right
It is impossible to take any of your "the west are cucks" posts seriously since your posts detailing your pants-filling terror at sailing on waters, from your photographs, were at a sea state 1 at worst. What an absolute melt you are.
I am seduced by the idea you took my posts seriously until you saw me in a squid-fishing boat in the Gulf of Siam
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
But the Rwanda plan has almost nothing to do with immigration at the scale we have. The record levels of immigration are from people on student visas, work visas, family visas, and the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. All of those are things that are under the direct control of the Government and do not require unprecedented legislation to address.
It's always worth putting a bet on another Tory leadership challenge within 18 months. I should have learnt that by now.
What we are witnessing is Sunak refusing to leave the EHCR and other international bodies and challenging those in his party who want us to align with Russia and Belarus as the only countries outside international law
On this he has my support and maybe it is better to take the right on now, as if he does win the vote with just a handful of his mps voting against then he will be in a more secure position - of course if the right decide to commit 'hari - kari' then it is all over for the conservative party as we know it
Russia is rapidly expanding its territory and is about to win a major war in Europe. Meanwhile its economy is growing healthily and its people are infused with patriotic fervour, and they know that a woman is a woman and a good cigar is a smoke
Here in the west we cower pathetically from the likes of Barbados as they demand “$5.4 trillion” in reparations and some of the leading universities of the western world say it’s ok to ask for genocide on the Jews but don’t misgender anyone!
We are pitiful. Putin is right
It is impossible to take any of your "the west are cucks" posts seriously since your posts detailing your pants-filling terror at sailing on waters, from your photographs, were at a sea state 1 at worst. What an absolute melt you are.
If @Leon was in the trenches, he would have been one that was shot at dawn in the interest of the remaining troops.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
But the Rwanda plan has almost nothing to do with immigration at the scale we have. The record levels of immigration are from people on student visas, work visas, family visas, and the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. All of those are things that are under the direct control of the Government and do not require unprecedented legislation to address.
They are also the clear policy choices of this very government.
Target of 600k overseas students. Control salaries in health and care such that jobs cant be filled without immigration. Accept our international responsibilities in Ukraine and Hong Kong.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
I forget the details, but didn't the government acknowledge that it was deliberately breaking the law in a "limited and specific way" as part of a Bill to solve the Brexit/Northern Ireland conundrum? There was quite a fuss at the time.
It's always worth putting a bet on another Tory leadership challenge within 18 months. I should have learnt that by now.
What we are witnessing is Sunak refusing to leave the EHCR and other international bodies and challenging those in his party who want us to align with Russia and Belarus as the only countries outside international law
On this he has my support and maybe it is better to take the right on now, as if he does win the vote with just a handful of his mps voting against then he will be in a more secure position - of course if the right decide to commit 'hari - kari' then it is all over for the conservative party as we know it
Russia is rapidly expanding its territory and is about to win a major war in Europe. Meanwhile its economy is growing healthily and its people are infused with patriotic fervour, and they know that a woman is a woman and a good cigar is a smoke
Here in the west we cower pathetically from the likes of Barbados as they demand “$5.4 trillion” in reparations and some of the leading universities of the western world say it’s ok to ask for genocide on the Jews but don’t misgender anyone!
We are pitiful. Putin is right
It is impossible to take any of your "the west are cucks" posts seriously since your posts detailing your pants-filling terror at sailing on waters, from your photographs, were at a sea state 1 at worst. What an absolute melt you are.
If @Leon was in the trenches, he would have been one that was shot at dawn in the interest of the remaining troops.
I’m pretty sure I’d have found some unpleasant and amoral way to avoid conscription, after all I’ve managed to go an entire lifetime without doing a single day’s “proper work”
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
Easy solution. Just plough on and call anyone racist who challenges it. Seems to work on Social media
Last nights Republican debate. CNN have another group of Republican Iowa voters together and of the 8, 1 said Trump won, 1 De-Santis and 6 Haley. 4 said they will vote for her in the Caucus. Haley has come out on top the last 3 debates by ever increasing margins, I would put money on her to win the Caucus in January, then South Carolina. With her as the candidate the Republicans would probably sweep the General Election in November.
This is bald-men-fighting-over-a-comb stuff though. Trump is running at 60% in the primary race. It's possible that Haley wins Iowa, though I don't think it likely. It's a very outside chance she wins S Carolina. Both, however, are special cases and Trump is not going to allow her a free ride; by contrast, she's not challenging him directly. As long as no-one takes Trump down, he wins.
And Trump goes independent if not nominee
For about the millionth time, no he doesn't, because he can't. There are rules (which didn't necessarily exist, or not to their current level of restrictions) which prevent candidates from running under two flags in the same election, and other rules about ballot access and filing deadlines which prevent sore-loser candidacies.
Less than half of university students chanting “from the river to sea” can correctly identify the river and the sea. Answers range from “the Nile” to “the Euphrates”, to “the Atlantic” and “the Caribbean”
Isn’t the Jewish festival Hanukkah about now? Festival of light. Maybe that’s a reason for a ceasefire; it is to be hoped anyway.
Hanukkah is a celebration of the recovery of Jerusalem and founding of the second temple. So naturally the fanatics plan to celebrate it by marching on the Al Aqsa mosque.
Not being religious I can't get upset about which set of priests gets to lord it over a rock but it's a huge trigger issue with the population of the surrounding Arab countries.
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
But the Rwanda plan has almost nothing to do with immigration at the scale we have. The record levels of immigration are from people on student visas, work visas, family visas, and the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. All of those are things that are under the direct control of the Government and do not require unprecedented legislation to address.
Yep this is what all the Rwanda advocates are ignoring. Apart from a very small number coming over illegally, we have exactly what they want. We have control of our borders.
It is just that the Government has decided (correctly in my opinion) that they will use that control to allow more migrants into the UK to provide the workers and growth we need.
This whole thing about 745,000 immigrants last year has nothing to do with illegal migration. Nor will it be stopped by Rwanda type idiocy. It has everything to do with the current Government making an economic and political decision over how many people it wants to let into the country.
Who is advising the Prime Minister? He has hijacked national television and talked himself into a corner on what would otherwise be a niche issue of limited interest to anyone above junior minister level, and furthermore an issue he is unlikely to win in the court of public opinion where the people who care, care about immigration and not sodding Rwanda.
A psychological compulsion to win whenever people disagree with him, even on relatively unimportant issues that are damaging his overall credibility?
Perhaps Rwanda has something in common with the Elgin Marbles?
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
A second referendum was perfectly plausible when reluctant Leave voters decided they had been hoodwinked prior to the government pulling the trigger. Democracy in action!
Now we have left, we are all leavers now and we need to make the best of it.
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
A second referendum was perfectly plausible when reluctant Leave voters decided they had been hoodwinked prior to the government pulling the trigger. Democracy in action!
Now we have left, we are all leavers now and we need to make the best of it.
I find this utterly despicable. Shameful. But Remoaners and 2nd voters don’t do “shame” so i accept my opinion is valueless
But it is shameful. The whole campaign for a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, was immoral to the core. One day perhaps a few of the 2nd vote types will fess up and apologise, I’m not banking on it
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
It would actually be the courts which would be straying into the constitutional impermissible territory there. There are no limits to parliamentary sovereignty, domestically anyway, other than the practical application of the law passed. It would be helpful if the point were not tested but the Bill of Rights is clear on the matter and any lawyer who thinks otherwise because - who knows: they think everything should be subject to unaccountable and unelected* judges opinions, even electorates and their representatives, presumably - may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Testing the rule of recognition, and hence their own legitimacy, is fraught with danger.
* Which is as it should be, providing that the people and their representatives have the ultimate power to override judicial decisions by passing new law.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
I think you'd need to explain that concept a bit more fully, given that Parliament has sovereign power to say what the law is.
Less than half of university students chanting “from the river to sea” can correctly identify the river and the sea. Answers range from “the Nile” to “the Euphrates”, to “the Atlantic” and “the Caribbean”
Yes, that is the point. Marchers were chanting it because it is, well, a chant. It's short and it rhymes. Not because they intended killing all the Jews.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
A second referendum was perfectly plausible when reluctant Leave voters decided they had been hoodwinked prior to the government pulling the trigger. Democracy in action!
Now we have left, we are all leavers now and we need to make the best of it.
I find this utterly despicable. Shameful. But Remoaners and 2nd voters don’t do “shame” so i accept my opinion is valueless
But it is shameful. The whole campaign for a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, was immoral to the core. One day perhaps a few of the 2nd vote types will fess up and apologise, I’m not banking on it
Once the faulty first referendum had been enacted there was no point in a second referendum. We are done now. No more EU referendum's ever.
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
Of course it is little more than a witch hunt. It should be, as has been discussed previously, about finding out what went wrong and making sure the mistakes are not repeated. During COVID I looked on Linkedin at some of the people involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice rehash and many were former Labour staffers. Qu'elle surprise.
This total waste of taxpayers money is all about grandstanding KC's and politicians trying to avoid/aportion blame
It won't change anyone's view of the major protagonists.
We also won't learn anything useful for the future.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
"I am really so sorry for people but [wheels in straw man argument to gag them]"
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
Of course it is little more than a witch hunt. It should be, as has been discussed previously, about finding out what went wrong and making sure the mistakes are not repeated. During COVID I looked on Linkedin at some of the people involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice rehash and many were former Labour staffers. Qu'elle surprise.
This total waste of taxpayers money is all about grandstanding KC's and politicians trying to avoid/aportion blame
It won't change anyone's view of the major protagonists.
We also won't learn anything useful for the future.
I may be pleasantly surprised but I doubt it.
Still waiting to see the KC correct the lies he told about UK performance during covid c.f. to other nations. It will be a long wait.
It’s that time of year again. If old shiny head can’t even sort out homelessness for his pal Dave in three years..
This must be write like the Daily Mail day .
1 - The chap isn't homeless. He now has a flat and a living. 2 - I'm sure that headline says "3 times in one year'. 3 - I don't think he promised to end all homelessless, and that his current contribution is a 5 year project that started about 5 months ago.
More seriously, I think the model he needs is perhaps the Prince's Trust, which is a fairly small organisation but has made a huge contribution by doing it for 50 years.
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
Of course it is little more than a witch hunt. It should be, as has been discussed previously, about finding out what went wrong and making sure the mistakes are not repeated. During COVID I looked on Linkedin at some of the people involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice rehash and many were former Labour staffers. Qu'elle surprise.
This total waste of taxpayers money is all about grandstanding KC's and politicians trying to avoid/aportion blame
It won't change anyone's view of the major protagonists.
We also won't learn anything useful for the future.
I may be pleasantly surprised but I doubt it.
The vast bulk of the questioning is done by the Inquiry. There are much smaller slots for various other groups. "Witnesses give evidence on oath and are questioned by a Counsel to the Inquiry. Counsel for Core Participants in the Inquiry can also ask questions with the Chair’s permission."
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
I think you'd need to explain that concept a bit more fully, given that Parliament has sovereign power to say what the law is.
No, Parliament has the sovereign power to pass acts of Parliament. The courts have the sovereign power to say what the law is.
Avoiding conflict between those two poles of our constitution (the Crown is the head of both of course) has been a USP of our collective life since about 1688. The only arbiter between those two sovereign powers is our armed forces, whose loyalty of course is to the Crown, not Parliament.
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
That’s ‘The Johnson Variant’ for you
Will this useless enquiry tackle the press, diet sage and the opposition over their ludicrous demands during the pandemic which, in hindsight, were just wrong.
This whole enquiry and debate is just too much about politics and so little about fact finding. A wasted opportunity.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
That vote was followed by a UK general election in which a majority of votes went to parties that explicitly rejected a no deal Brexit and therefore had a mandate to prevent one. The problems were caused by Tory MPs who did not have such a mandate but continued to vote against their party whip. As far as I remember, though I do admit I could well be wrong, Labour proposed a second referendum in its 2019 GE manifesto and lost the election. That's not really an attempted coup.
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
"I am really so sorry for people but [wheels in straw man argument to gag them]"
How are they gagged. They have had a platform since this started and were even featured on Breakfast TV again this morning ?
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
That vote was followed by a UK general election in which a majority of votes went to parties that explicitly rejected a no deal Brexit and therefore had a mandate to prevent one. The problems were caused by Tory MPs who did not have such a mandate but continued to vote against their party whip. As far as I remember, though I do admit I could well be wrong, Labour proposed a second referendum in its 2019 GE manifesto and lost the election. That's not really an attempted coup.
Shameful. It is the only word. Maybe “disgusting”?
Imagine what would have happened to British democracy if the first referendum had simply been overturned, as you and Starmer wanted? Who would ever have voted again? What’s the fucking point? Who would have voted in any pitiful, staged 2nd referendum? Millions - including me - would have boycotted it. So you’d have kept us in the EU via an illegitimate 2nd vote with about 40% turnout and Remainers winning by 90/10
Well done. You’d have turned us into North Korea overnight and destroyed UK democracy for two generations
Thank God Boris won that election and you got fucked
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
That vote was followed by a UK general election in which a majority of votes went to parties that explicitly rejected a no deal Brexit and therefore had a mandate to prevent one. The problems were caused by Tory MPs who did not have such a mandate but continued to vote against their party whip. As far as I remember, though I do admit I could well be wrong, Labour proposed a second referendum in its 2019 GE manifesto and lost the election. That's not really an attempted coup.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
Good luck with that argument. Parliament has the absolute power to pass acts of parliament. The courts have the absolute power to say what the law is. That second power is of immense significance. When Sunak says 'I respect the (SC) decision but don't agree with it' he treads dangerously.
The question implied in what you say has never been tested, nor should it be. Crown, parliament, courts are all bulwarks against arbitrary power and tyranny.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
I forget the details, but didn't the government acknowledge that it was deliberately breaking the law in a "limited and specific way" as part of a Bill to solve the Brexit/Northern Ireland conundrum? There was quite a fuss at the time.
That legislation was withdrawn though, so the issue never came to a head.
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
But the Rwanda plan has almost nothing to do with immigration at the scale we have. The record levels of immigration are from people on student visas, work visas, family visas, and the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. All of those are things that are under the direct control of the Government and do not require unprecedented legislation to address.
Yep this is what all the Rwanda advocates are ignoring. Apart from a very small number coming over illegally, we have exactly what they want. We have control of our borders.
It is just that the Government has decided (correctly in my opinion) that they will use that control to allow more migrants into the UK to provide the workers and growth we need.
This whole thing about 745,000 immigrants last year has nothing to do with illegal migration. Nor will it be stopped by Rwanda type idiocy. It has everything to do with the current Government making an economic and political decision over how many people it wants to let into the country.
Yes and no. I'm completely in agreement that the government needs to get a grip on legal migration ASAP (the shortage occupation list needs either to go or a massive pruning), and that the government is deliberately conflating the legal and illegal immigration issues in the hope that people will think solving the boat crossings problem will solve the whole thing.
That said, the boat crossings issue is real - it's still about 10% of the total immigration numbers, and it's also the least desirable and most expensive to us of all the immigration streams.
It's also a problem with as far as I can see only 3 possible solutions: 1)Use the navy to sink every boat. Would probably only require one or two sinkings and a few hundred drownings to work, but obviously it's completely unacceptable to behave like that, and we shouldn't do it. 2) Get the French to catch all the people smugglers before they leave the French coast/waters. Nice idea in theory, in practice completely unworkable as the French have zero incentive to co-operate, no matter how much we pay them. 3) Remove every single boat crosser without fail to somewhere that's safe, but not in the UK. This would actually work to stop the crossings, as the Australians demonstrated when they solved their boat people problem.
My problem is that the government doesn't actually seem to be serious about solving the issue; they would rather keep losing in the courts and making a load of noise about lefty lawyers obstructing democracy (they aren't wrong about that, but it's hardly news - lawyers have been abusing the HRA for years to give "rights" to allow undesirables to stay in the country), rather than actually getting the deed done, and planes flying to Rwanda. If they don't think it's possible under the law (and it's pretty clear Jenrick and Braveman don't) either give up and try something different, or change the law, rather than keep pretending that this time it will be different.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
My lot?
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
I think you'd need to explain that concept a bit more fully, given that Parliament has sovereign power to say what the law is.
No, Parliament has the sovereign power to pass acts of Parliament. The courts have the sovereign power to say what the law is.
Frankly I think it's a bit silly to try to draw a distinction between passing acts of parliament and saying what the law is. Obviously the role of the courts is to interpret the acts of parliament that say what the law is. Whether that is a "sovereign power" would be one for the constitutional theorists ...
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
I think the issue is an increasingly codified constitution, that’s crept up over time via legislation such at the various Human Rights Acts, Equalites Acts, and Environment Acts (and obviously EU legislation was a huge part of this), which by design restricts the scope of future legislation that the government can pass without explicitly repealing the “constitutional amendments” first.
Over time, this tends to increase the powers of the Supreme Court, over those of Parliament and the Executive.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
Less than half of university students chanting “from the river to sea” can correctly identify the river and the sea. Answers range from “the Nile” to “the Euphrates”, to “the Atlantic” and “the Caribbean”
When I was at University I was appalled how little I was taught. They kept wanting to speak about law which was unspeakably dull. How did those people on University Challenge answer questions on art, music, literature and science? Had I come to the wrong place?
I made inquiries but it appeared that other Universities were the same. Dull factories manned by bored lecturers teaching the same stuff again and again whilst feverishly trying to publish stuff that almost no one would read. These factories were churning out professionals with slightly less efficiency than the local college churned out car mechanics but the basic philosophy was the same.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
My lot?
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum even if the PM and the EU agreed a deal before the 2019 GE; one of the options had to be remain, and he would campaign for Remain
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
For myself I don't want a USA style SC. But it remains the case that parliament can pass acts but has no power to decide cases, and only courts can say what the law is and how it applies in any individual case. (BTW the law is always more than the latest Act of Parliament. Our system goes back 800 years and is a living body. Not enough MPs seem to comprehend this).
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
But the Rwanda plan has almost nothing to do with immigration at the scale we have. The record levels of immigration are from people on student visas, work visas, family visas, and the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. All of those are things that are under the direct control of the Government and do not require unprecedented legislation to address.
Yep this is what all the Rwanda advocates are ignoring. Apart from a very small number coming over illegally, we have exactly what they want. We have control of our borders.
It is just that the Government has decided (correctly in my opinion) that they will use that control to allow more migrants into the UK to provide the workers and growth we need.
This whole thing about 745,000 immigrants last year has nothing to do with illegal migration. Nor will it be stopped by Rwanda type idiocy. It has everything to do with the current Government making an economic and political decision over how many people it wants to let into the country.
Yes and no. I'm completely in agreement that the government needs to get a grip on legal migration ASAP (the shortage occupation list needs either to go or a massive pruning), and that the government is deliberately conflating the legal and illegal immigration issues in the hope that people will think solving the boat crossings problem will solve the whole thing.
That said, the boat crossings issue is real - it's still about 10% of the total immigration numbers, and it's also the least desirable and most expensive to us of all the immigration streams.
It's also a problem with as far as I can see only 3 possible solutions: 1)Use the navy to sink every boat. Would probably only require one or two sinkings and a few hundred drownings to work, but obviously it's completely unacceptable to behave like that, and we shouldn't do it. 2) Get the French to catch all the people smugglers before they leave the French coast/waters. Nice idea in theory, in practice completely unworkable as the French have zero incentive to co-operate, no matter how much we pay them. 3) Remove every single boat crosser without fail to somewhere that's safe, but not in the UK. This would actually work to stop the crossings, as the Australians demonstrated when they solved their boat people problem.
My problem is that the government doesn't actually seem to be serious about solving the issue; they would rather keep losing in the courts and making a load of noise about lefty lawyers obstructing democracy (they aren't wrong about that, but it's hardly news - lawyers have been abusing the HRA for years to give "rights" to allow undesirables to stay in the country), rather than actually getting the deed done, and planes flying to Rwanda. If they don't think it's possible under the law (and it's pretty clear Jenrick and Braveman don't) either give up and try something different, or change the law, rather than keep pretending that this time it will be different.
Your 10% is quite a long way off.
The last year we have full figures for for legal and illegal immigration the number of migrants entering by illegal boat crossings was 45,000. Total legal immigration in 2022 was 1.2 million. That is 3.75%
If the Government actually wanted to do something about reducing overall migration (which I don't think they should anyway) then they should spend the time and effort on reducing legal migration - and suffer the economic comsequences - rather than spending vast sums on stupid schemes to send people to Africa.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
Good luck with that argument. Parliament has the absolute power to pass acts of parliament. The courts have the absolute power to say what the law is. That second power is of immense significance. When Sunak says 'I respect the (SC) decision but don't agree with it' he treads dangerously.
The question implied in what you say has never been tested, nor should it be. Crown, parliament, courts are all bulwarks against arbitrary power and tyranny.
Parliament is supreme over any court; Parliament IS the ultimate court
We made an error when we created the UK Supreme Court and named it thus in 2009. It gave less intelligent people the idea it has similar powers to SCOTUS
“The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty,[6] so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries such as the United States. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. “
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
Less than half of university students chanting “from the river to sea” can correctly identify the river and the sea. Answers range from “the Nile” to “the Euphrates”, to “the Atlantic” and “the Caribbean”
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
i advise you to shut up, from this point. Embarrassing ignorance of basic English constitutional history and theory
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
Johnson is being spanked by the COVID families' Barrister.
He's getting grumpy now.
Personally do not think they should be there. This is a witch hunt for them. It should be about finding out how to do better next time, not looking for vengeance.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
That’s ‘The Johnson Variant’ for you
Will this useless enquiry tackle the press, diet sage and the opposition over their ludicrous demands during the pandemic which, in hindsight, were just wrong.
This whole enquiry and debate is just too much about politics and so little about fact finding. A wasted opportunity.
The Inquiry's Terms of Reference are at https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Covid-19-Inquiry-Terms-of-Reference-Final-2.pdf They do not directly cover the actions of the press or Opposition, but do, of course, cover the actions of those who may have been responding or not responding to the calls of the press and Opposition. Indeed, there have been regular discussions of how politicians responded to articles in the press, as in Johnson's testimony yesterday.
"Q. There is one more aspect to these set of problems that I want to ask you about, which is Independent SAGE, and if we could look, please, at page 51 of your statement, subparagraph 3 at the top there, you refer to the decision in June 2020, so at around about the same time as, for example, The Guardian article and the concerns about messaging that we mentioned: "The decision in June 2020 of multiple participantsof SPI-B to join a subgroup of independent SAGE took me by surprise and put us in an awkward position." I'm going to take you to a couple of emails, but in summary did this raise a similar problem in the sense, first of all, of course these committee members were entitled to join whatever committee they liked, but it did raise issues about the effectiveness of SPI-B?
A [Prof Rubin, SPI-B chair]. Yes, that's fair, and various members joined all sorts of different committees, joined the British Psychological Society committee or the World Health Organisation or Independent SAGE in this case, but this was again raised with me specifically that, as you can see in the quotes there, it raises real issues of trust for policymakers -- or government departments are now becoming very wary of putting anything to SPI-B. So it did raise a tension.
Q. Let's look, if we may, at a couple of emails, which I think are probably those that are quoted in that paragraph. First of all, if we just look at INQ000197131. We can just look at the top half of this page. This is an exchange between you and someone called Stuart Wainwright, who we have heard evidence from, certainly a member of the secretariat, of the SAGE secretariat, possibly rather more senior than that, I forget, was he in fact the senior member of the SAGE secretariat?
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
For myself I don't want a USA style SC. But it remains the case that parliament can pass acts but has no power to decide cases, and only courts can say what the law is and how it applies in any individual case. (BTW the law is always more than the latest Act of Parliament. Our system goes back 800 years and is a living body. Not enough MPs seem to comprehend this).
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
I feel your pain - some things are technically legal but just *feel* wrong. Yet they get away with it
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
i advise you to shut up, from this point. Embarrassing ignorance of basic English constitutional history and theory
Yes, I get that you do not like the issue to be raised. I suggest that you just don't get involved in the conversation.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
That vote was followed by a UK general election in which a majority of votes went to parties that explicitly rejected a no deal Brexit and therefore had a mandate to prevent one. The problems were caused by Tory MPs who did not have such a mandate but continued to vote against their party whip. As far as I remember, though I do admit I could well be wrong, Labour proposed a second referendum in its 2019 GE manifesto and lost the election. That's not really an attempted coup.
Indeed. It's as someone upthread says, "Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme".
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
My lot?
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum even if the PM and the EU agreed a deal before the 2019 GE; one of the options had to be remain, and he would campaign for Remain
And Labour put that case to the British people and was roundly defeated.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
Good luck with that argument. Parliament has the absolute power to pass acts of parliament. The courts have the absolute power to say what the law is. That second power is of immense significance. When Sunak says 'I respect the (SC) decision but don't agree with it' he treads dangerously.
The question implied in what you say has never been tested, nor should it be. Crown, parliament, courts are all bulwarks against arbitrary power and tyranny.
Parliament is supreme over any court; Parliament IS the ultimate court
We made an error when we created the UK Supreme Court and named it thus in 2009. It gave less intelligent people the idea it has similar powers to SCOTUS
“The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty,[6] so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries such as the United States. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. “
On the issue of 'overturning primary legislation'.
1) This has never actually been decided, and even if it has, see 4 2) All primary legislation becomes part of the totality of the body of law made over 800 years. Courts decide how laws interact 3) Courts (SC in the end) not parliament decide what the law is 4) The SC can overrule itself.
I see that Rishi Sunak says "My patience with this has worn thin".
It's always a bit irritating when people get historical quotations wrong. The exact quotation should be "meine Geduld jetzt zu Ende ist!"
Again, who is advising the Prime Minister?
To be honest I think "patience wearing thin" in the mouth of Rishi Sunak feels much more like a worn-out time lord about to be replaced by someone else, than a political genius about to conquer half of Europe.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
i advise you to shut up, from this point. Embarrassing ignorance of basic English constitutional history and theory
Yes, I get that you do not like the issue to be raised. I suggest that you just don't get involved in the conversation.
I’ve not taken you for an idiot before. Quite surprised, TBH
I do think it was Blair/Brown calling the new court “the Supreme Court” in 2009 which literally did this to midwits like you. Add in ten years of watching the West Wing and you actually believe it is just like the SCOTUS
License fee to rise by an exorbitant £10.50 a month to £169.50 a year just for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Sooner it is replaced with general taxation for the distribution network and the BBC seeking its funding in the commercial arena the better. Get this done and implemented before the next election.
"The government is also launching a review of the BBC's funding model, Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer told MPs."
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
To be fair to Goodall, I don't think that's what he is saying. He's saying that parliament sometimes passes contradictory legislation and that when it does, it's down to the courts to decide which to apply, when, and how - and that the practical effect of that is to annul whichever Act is deemed unapplicable in the relevant circumstances. Which is fair enough.
Crucially, courts can only 'undo' a law in these cases because another law allows them to and they give it precedence, not because they don't like the look of the one set aside in isolation.
Who'd have thunk that nice Mr Putin was interfering in British politics?
Everyone who’s been following Russian and Chinese activity online for the past three decades, and especially the past decade!
It’s in their interest to sow the seeds of discord, and that’s what they’re doing, whether it’s general trolling on social media or hacking politicians specifically. For the latter, you can go back centuries, to various foreign spies trying to get information from high-up sources in governments across the world.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
They are fucking morons. Indeed we have a few on here tonight. @SouthamObserver etc
Incredible
Tonight, it is just before 2 in the afternoon mate.
Goodall is a plank, he is a part of a dreary centrist dad podcast where three people with slightly differing views agree with each other and occasionally get on guests who hate the govt.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
I think you'd need to explain that concept a bit more fully, given that Parliament has sovereign power to say what the law is.
No, Parliament has the sovereign power to pass acts of Parliament. The courts have the sovereign power to say what the law is.
Frankly I think it's a bit silly to try to draw a distinction between passing acts of parliament and saying what the law is. Obviously the role of the courts is to interpret the acts of parliament that say what the law is. Whether that is a "sovereign power" would be one for the constitutional theorists ...
May I just note that law is not entirely based on Parliamentary Acts? We also have a common law. The Government can also enter into treaties (and that is done by the executive, not the legislature) that create obligations.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
My lot?
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum even if the PM and the EU agreed a deal before the 2019 GE; one of the options had to be remain, and he would campaign for Remain
And Labour put that case to the British people and was roundly defeated.
Yes, but you can’t get away with that, sorry.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum with remain an option, in which he would campaign for remain when there was no GE in the offing
This is despite being elected in 2017 after saying respecting the result was ‘an important point of principle’
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
Good luck with that argument. Parliament has the absolute power to pass acts of parliament. The courts have the absolute power to say what the law is. That second power is of immense significance. When Sunak says 'I respect the (SC) decision but don't agree with it' he treads dangerously.
The question implied in what you say has never been tested, nor should it be. Crown, parliament, courts are all bulwarks against arbitrary power and tyranny.
Parliament is supreme over any court; Parliament IS the ultimate court
We made an error when we created the UK Supreme Court and named it thus in 2009. It gave less intelligent people the idea it has similar powers to SCOTUS
“The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty,[6] so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries such as the United States. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. “
On the issue of 'overturning primary legislation'.
1) This has never actually been decided, and even if it has, see 4 2) All primary legislation becomes part of the totality of the body of law made over 800 years. Courts decide how laws interact 3) Courts (SC in the end) not parliament decide what the law is 4) The SC can overrule itself.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
That would be Nigel Farage, surely, who was first to call for a second referendum (but only when he thought he'd lost the first one).
I mean, that may make you feel better but it’s shite, isn’t it?
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
That vote was followed by a UK general election in which a majority of votes went to parties that explicitly rejected a no deal Brexit and therefore had a mandate to prevent one. The problems were caused by Tory MPs who did not have such a mandate but continued to vote against their party whip. As far as I remember, though I do admit I could well be wrong, Labour proposed a second referendum in its 2019 GE manifesto and lost the election. That's not really an attempted coup.
Shameful. It is the only word. Maybe “disgusting”?
Imagine what would have happened to British democracy if the first referendum had simply been overturned, as you and Starmer wanted? Who would ever have voted again? What’s the fucking point? Who would have voted in any pitiful, staged 2nd referendum? Millions - including me - would have boycotted it. So you’d have kept us in the EU via an illegitimate 2nd vote with about 40% turnout and Remainers winning by 90/10
Well done. You’d have turned us into North Korea overnight and destroyed UK democracy for two generations
Thank God Boris won that election and you got fucked
The only way for the result of the first referendum to be overturned was following either a general election in which such a proposition appeared in the winning party's manifesto or via a second referendum. In other words, it could not have happened without the approval of the electorate and that consent was not given. Your knowledge of North Korea is clearly very limited.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
What Parliamentary sovereignty means is that Parliament can decide the LAW - i.e. the rules that apply in any given factual situation. It can't decide facts, and that has never been part of the concept.
I doubt this particular Bill will get through, but the problem it will have if it does is that in effect it isn't making law but declaring facts (i.e. that Rwanda is safe). Parliament saying something is true does not make it true - if it says 2 plus 2 is 5, it still isn't, and simply isn't what Parliamentary sovereignty means.
The Bill tries to get around that by essentially saying that the courts must simply pretend that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of deciding asylum cases, whether or not it that is in fact true. So that is, it is argued, a "law" because it is a rule binding on the courts that they must simply pretend something is a fact whether or not it is.
That just isn't going to fly legally. In particular, international treaties are not made on that basis - they are meaningless if parties can then go off and pass a law saying "for all purposes, everyone must pretend we are compliant with international law".
In fairness to the Jenrick/Braverman argument (something I thought I'd never say), they are at least being honest to that extent by saying "sod it, let's break international law" - it's correct that Parliament could just make a law that says we're going rogue internationally and screw the consequences. But Sunak isn't doing that - he is pretending he has found a way around it (whether due to intellectual arrogance or simple dishonesty). But he really hasn't - it's doomed to failure, a massive waste of time and money, and idiocy whether you're pro- or anti-Rwanda policy.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
My lot?
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum even if the PM and the EU agreed a deal before the 2019 GE; one of the options had to be remain, and he would campaign for Remain
And Labour put that case to the British people and was roundly defeated.
In a sense the '2nd Referendum' happened. GE19 asked the country if it truly wanted Brexit. Answer was Yes.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
To be fair to Goodall, I don't think that's what he is saying. He's saying that parliament sometimes passes contradictory legislation and that when it does, it's down to the courts to decide which to apply, when, and how - and that the practical effect of that is to annul whichever Act is deemed unapplicable in the relevant circumstances. Which is fair enough.
Crucially, courts can only 'undo' a law in these cases because another law allows them to and they give it precedence, not because they don't like the look of the one set aside in isolation.
@david_herdson, would you care to write a brief article about the British constitutional situation? I know it's a thankless task but I would like to read it and it may help people.
It's always worth putting a bet on another Tory leadership challenge within 18 months. I should have learnt that by now.
What we are witnessing is Sunak refusing to leave the EHCR and other international bodies and challenging those in his party who want us to align with Russia and Belarus as the only countries outside international law
On this he has my support and maybe it is better to take the right on now, as if he does win the vote with just a handful of his mps voting against then he will be in a more secure position - of course if the right decide to commit 'hari - kari' then it is all over for the conservative party as we know it
Russia is rapidly expanding its territory and is about to win a major war in Europe. Meanwhile its economy is growing healthily and its people are infused with patriotic fervour, and they know that a woman is a woman and a good cigar is a smoke
Here in the west we cower pathetically from the likes of Barbados as they demand “$5.4 trillion” in reparations and some of the leading universities of the western world say it’s ok to ask for genocide on the Jews but don’t misgender anyone!
We are pitiful. Putin is right
It is impossible to take any of your "the west are cucks" posts seriously since your posts detailing your pants-filling terror at sailing on waters, from your photographs, were at a sea state 1 at worst. What an absolute melt you are.
I am seduced by the idea you took my posts seriously until you saw me in a squid-fishing boat in the Gulf of Siam
Nah, it just sealed the deal.
How many of these have you visited ? Including the replies.
The most breathtaking church from every country in Europe 🧵
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
Immigration at the scale we have is itself a direct constitutional issue. It literally changes how the country is constituted and resets the parameters within which politics can take place.
But the Rwanda plan has almost nothing to do with immigration at the scale we have. The record levels of immigration are from people on student visas, work visas, family visas, and the special Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. All of those are things that are under the direct control of the Government and do not require unprecedented legislation to address.
Yep this is what all the Rwanda advocates are ignoring. Apart from a very small number coming over illegally, we have exactly what they want. We have control of our borders.
It is just that the Government has decided (correctly in my opinion) that they will use that control to allow more migrants into the UK to provide the workers and growth we need.
This whole thing about 745,000 immigrants last year has nothing to do with illegal migration. Nor will it be stopped by Rwanda type idiocy. It has everything to do with the current Government making an economic and political decision over how many people it wants to let into the country.
Yes and no. I'm completely in agreement that the government needs to get a grip on legal migration ASAP (the shortage occupation list needs either to go or a massive pruning), and that the government is deliberately conflating the legal and illegal immigration issues in the hope that people will think solving the boat crossings problem will solve the whole thing.
That said, the boat crossings issue is real - it's still about 10% of the total immigration numbers, and it's also the least desirable and most expensive to us of all the immigration streams.
It's also a problem with as far as I can see only 3 possible solutions: 1)Use the navy to sink every boat. Would probably only require one or two sinkings and a few hundred drownings to work, but obviously it's completely unacceptable to behave like that, and we shouldn't do it. 2) Get the French to catch all the people smugglers before they leave the French coast/waters. Nice idea in theory, in practice completely unworkable as the French have zero incentive to co-operate, no matter how much we pay them. 3) Remove every single boat crosser without fail to somewhere that's safe, but not in the UK. This would actually work to stop the crossings, as the Australians demonstrated when they solved their boat people problem.
My problem is that the government doesn't actually seem to be serious about solving the issue; they would rather keep losing in the courts and making a load of noise about lefty lawyers obstructing democracy (they aren't wrong about that, but it's hardly news - lawyers have been abusing the HRA for years to give "rights" to allow undesirables to stay in the country), rather than actually getting the deed done, and planes flying to Rwanda. If they don't think it's possible under the law (and it's pretty clear Jenrick and Braveman don't) either give up and try something different, or change the law, rather than keep pretending that this time it will be different.
Your 10% is quite a long way off.
The last year we have full figures for for legal and illegal immigration the number of migrants entering by illegal boat crossings was 45,000. Total legal immigration in 2022 was 1.2 million. That is 3.75%
If the Government actually wanted to do something about reducing overall migration (which I don't think they should anyway) then they should spend the time and effort on reducing legal migration - and suffer the economic comsequences - rather than spending vast sums on stupid schemes to send people to Africa.
In fairness they are doing a number of things in reducing legal migration. They have increased the earnings you need to get a visa here, they have substantially increased the income you need to have to bring a spouse or other family member here, they are trimming the number of exempt categories and putting more pressure on the likes of the care sector to find and train domestic workers and they are going to have a significant drop in the number of students when the distortions of Covid work their way through.
All of which is perfectly sensible. Unlike the Rwanda policy that they seem to prefer to talk about which is perfectly stupid and has no real impact on the bigger picture.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Well, your lot decided to try and cancel democracy by annulling a referendum - Britain’s biggest ever vote - before the result was even enacted. So frankly you can fuck off with this pious bullshit
Not least because Sir Kir Royale was a leading “2nd voter”
My lot?
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum even if the PM and the EU agreed a deal before the 2019 GE; one of the options had to be remain, and he would campaign for Remain
And Labour put that case to the British people and was roundly defeated.
Yes, but you can’t get away with that, sorry.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum with remain an option, in which he would campaign for remain when there was no GE in the offing
This is despite being elected in 2017 after saying respecting the result was ‘an important point of principle’
Starmer did not get what he wanted. But what he wanted was to put his case to the British people, not impose an outcome on them.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
Can you tell me the last time the UK government legislated to allow itself to break the law? Not to change the law, but to break it?
The current constitutional settlement wrests on the notion that there are some things the government won’t do even if, in theory, it can. I’d suggest that a couple of those are legislating to remove all human rights from a defined group of people and legislating to allow the government to break the law. That goes beyond politics, although only politics can resolve it - if the government does not legislate that away.
Firstly, the government doesn't legislate in instances like this, parliament does. That's an important distinction: the government is subject to the authority of the Courts, parliament is not.
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Quite so
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
It's remarkable how many people who should know better not only think that we've already got one, but also think we've always had one.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
Who'd have thunk that nice Mr Putin was interfering in British politics?
Very loosely related - I had an unusual spam/phishing issue this week - had a call, on my work number, from someone claiming to be from the Wellcome Trust (I currently hold some WT funding) and looking to put me in touch with some other applicants in a similar field - he outlined the research area in very broad terms, which was relevant to my research interests. I was wary - unsolicited, not a number I have for Wellcome - so said I was on my way to a meeting and asked the gentleman to email to arrange a later meeting. He read out my email address to me to confirm he had the correct details. Reported to Uni and matched description of some other calls received. Needless to say, no follow-up email arrived.
Nothing spectacular there - everything used is derivable from my University web page - but it's the first time I've been subject to anything at all targeted in this way. I was much politer than I'd usually be to a suspected scammer as I didn't think it totally impossible it could be legit. I can see how people who are likely commonly cold-called by people they don't know who work for them/in other departments/organisations could easily fall for this, with sufficient background research done.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
I feel your pain - some things are technically legal but just *feel* wrong. Yet they get away with it
Some things are *legal*. The technically you keep wanking off about is the difference between something which is legal and something else which is illegal.
The only technicality is the razor blade you are standing on.
I see that Rishi Sunak says "My patience with this has worn thin".
It's always a bit irritating when people get historical quotations wrong. The exact quotation should be "meine Geduld jetzt zu Ende ist!"
Again, who is advising the Prime Minister?
To be honest I think "patience wearing thin" in the mouth of Rishi Sunak feels much more like a worn-out time lord about to be replaced by someone else, than a political genius about to conquer half of Europe.
As with the Blackadder-style slogans, this does lend itself to the suspicion mischief is afoot in CCHQ. One does not need to go all Nadine Dorries with Dr No bringing down successive Prime Ministers to wonder if Rishi's advisers necessarily have his best interests at heart.
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
i advise you to shut up, from this point. Embarrassing ignorance of basic English constitutional history and theory
Yes, I get that you do not like the issue to be raised. I suggest that you just don't get involved in the conversation.
I’ve not taken you for an idiot before. Quite surprised, TBH
I do think it was Blair/Brown calling the new court “the Supreme Court” in 2009 which literally did this to midwits like you. Add in ten years of watching the West Wing and you actually believe it is just like the SCOTUS
No, I don't. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. The legislation would go to the Supreme Court. The whole point here is that there is no avenue to challenge a parliament which decides to remove human rights from a defined group of people. In the past, this has not been an issue because Parliament has not done it.
License fee to rise by an exorbitant £10.50 a month to £169.50 a year just for the pleasure of receiving live TV signals.
Sooner it is replaced with general taxation for the distribution network and the BBC seeking its funding in the commercial arena the better. Get this done and implemented before the next election.
"The government is also launching a review of the BBC's funding model, Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer told MPs."
It's always worth putting a bet on another Tory leadership challenge within 18 months. I should have learnt that by now.
What we are witnessing is Sunak refusing to leave the EHCR and other international bodies and challenging those in his party who want us to align with Russia and Belarus as the only countries outside international law
On this he has my support and maybe it is better to take the right on now, as if he does win the vote with just a handful of his mps voting against then he will be in a more secure position - of course if the right decide to commit 'hari - kari' then it is all over for the conservative party as we know it
Russia is rapidly expanding its territory and is about to win a major war in Europe. Meanwhile its economy is growing healthily and its people are infused with patriotic fervour, and they know that a woman is a woman and a good cigar is a smoke
Here in the west we cower pathetically from the likes of Barbados as they demand “$5.4 trillion” in reparations and some of the leading universities of the western world say it’s ok to ask for genocide on the Jews but don’t misgender anyone!
We are pitiful. Putin is right
It is impossible to take any of your "the west are cucks" posts seriously since your posts detailing your pants-filling terror at sailing on waters, from your photographs, were at a sea state 1 at worst. What an absolute melt you are.
I am seduced by the idea you took my posts seriously until you saw me in a squid-fishing boat in the Gulf of Siam
Nah, it just sealed the deal.
How many of these have you visited ? Including the replies.
The most breathtaking church from every country in Europe 🧵
If a government can successfully legislate to take human rights from one set of people, what’s to stop it doing the same to another set and another and so on? A cornerstone of any free, democratic country is protection of minorities. The UK government is seeking to legislate that away.
If a UK government can successfully legislate to remove its actions from legal scrutiny, as this government is seeking to do, what is to stop it legislating to end elections, create a one party state, end press freedom and so on?
The constitutional implications of the Rwanda bill becoming implementable law are huge. Effectively, it would demonstrate our current settlement offers no protection against tyranny in a situation where the executive has a majority in the House of Commons.
That has literally been the constitutional settlement for centuries - and has indeed been demonstrated clearly at times, most obviously, recently, with the Covid restrictions (which whether justified or not were immense infringements on civil liberties).
There are no constitutional implications to the Rwanda Bill. There are political ones.
It is not impossible that there are wider implications. Tom de la Mare KC comments thus today on TwiX:
One of the practical merits of the British Constitution hitherto is that the limits of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty have never been explored by the passing of extreme legislation testing the unstated but assumed premises of our constitutional arrangements.
Those problems are amplified by the other multifold ways in which our Parliament is evidently defective, starting with the abuse of delegated legislation and power transfer to the Executive, against which only the Courts are a safeguard, leading to further constitutional strain.
Precisely!
There are a couple of deep issues here. One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
The government can change the law as it sees fit. But the government is not seeking to do that with the Rwanda legislation. It is seeking to disapply it inasmuch as it effects a particular category of people. If it can do it to them (refugees), what is to stop it doing the same to anyone else? It seems to me that we have entered entirely uncharted territory.
Parliament can do what it likes. You display a fairly astonishing lack of understanding of the UK’s constitutional history
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
I totally understand that Parliament can do what it wants, but it is being asked to do what it has never done before. Our constitutional settlement is predicated on the principle that while Parliament is theoretically unconstrained, in practice it is, that there are certain things it will not do. I'd argue that removing human rights from a carefully defined group of people is one such action. If it can and then does do that with regard to refugees, why not other groups too?
i advise you to shut up, from this point. Embarrassing ignorance of basic English constitutional history and theory
Yes, I get that you do not like the issue to be raised. I suggest that you just don't get involved in the conversation.
I’ve not taken you for an idiot before. Quite surprised, TBH
I do think it was Blair/Brown calling the new court “the Supreme Court” in 2009 which literally did this to midwits like you. Add in ten years of watching the West Wing and you actually believe it is just like the SCOTUS
New Labour Americanising the country is a scandal yet to be written, from the Supreme Court to half the country going to university, let alone the wars (not just Iraq). ETA privatised health care too.
Comments
People said that Starmer was the new Kinnock… he’d never be PM
He's getting grumpy now.
Starmer and the 2nd voters literally tried to overturn democracy. A vote which David Cameron solemnly promised would be honoured. Indeed, let us go back and revisit the Prime Minister’s words
‘Ultimately it will be the judgment of the British people in the referendum… You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future. It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide. At that moment, you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.’
And there is more:
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation, and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay, I say: think again. The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice. An in or out referendum. When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave. There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.’
Was that vote “respected” by Starmer and the Remoaners? Absolutely not. They attempted a British version of the January 6 coup
Target of 600k overseas students.
Control salaries in health and care such that jobs cant be filled without immigration.
Accept our international responsibilities in Ukraine and Hong Kong.
Less than half of university students chanting “from the river to sea” can correctly identify the river and the sea. Answers range from “the Nile” to “the Euphrates”, to “the Atlantic” and “the Caribbean”
https://x.com/simonmontefiore/status/1732713846308008252?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
Not being religious I can't get upset about which set of priests gets to lord it over a rock but it's a huge trigger issue with the population of the surrounding Arab countries.
It is just that the Government has decided (correctly in my opinion) that they will use that control to allow more migrants into the UK to provide the workers and growth we need.
This whole thing about 745,000 immigrants last year has nothing to do with illegal migration. Nor will it be stopped by Rwanda type idiocy. It has everything to do with the current Government making an economic and political decision over how many people it wants to let into the country.
Perhaps Rwanda has something in common with the Elgin Marbles?
Now we have left, we are all leavers now and we need to make the best of it.
I am sorry for anyone who lost people, I really am. But the idea that Johnson is responsible for all 250,000 deaths from covid is absurd.
"Boris Johnson 'fights back tears' in 'predetermined' Covid Inquiry 'lacking neutrality'"
https://youtu.be/7gUCuY-yjcM?si=KXa3eQF_CaMhRP5M
But it is shameful. The whole campaign for a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, was immoral to the core. One day perhaps a few of the 2nd vote types will fess up and apologise, I’m not banking on it
* Which is as it should be, providing that the people and their representatives have the ultimate power to override judicial decisions by passing new law.
This total waste of taxpayers money is all about grandstanding KC's and politicians trying to avoid/aportion blame
It won't change anyone's view of the major protagonists.
We also won't learn anything useful for the future.
I may be pleasantly surprised but I doubt it.
One is the question of what courts/lawyers/judges are for. Do they merely check out the law or do they ever make it?
And secondly, who is the final arbiter? The Supreme Court or Parliament? And can a court simply say 'You can't do that because of reasons'.
Core Participants are defined on a per module basis, and you can apply to be one, see https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Core-Participant-Protocol.docx-1.pdf
Avoiding conflict between those two poles of our constitution (the Crown is the head of both of course) has been a USP of our collective life since about 1688. The only arbiter between those two sovereign powers is our armed forces, whose loyalty of course is to the Crown, not Parliament.
This whole enquiry and debate is just too much about politics and so little about fact finding. A wasted opportunity.
He phrases it succinctly. All this stuff was established in the Civil War and the Bill of Rights (and it is Why Brexit, inter alia). Parliament is sovereign, ultimately it cannot be stopped by courts or lawyers, merely checked, and even then the checks can be overruled. Parliament, as the embodied will of the people, is supreme
If you don’t like this - and fair enough - campaign for a written constitution which changes this
Secondly, you cannot legislate to allow a government to break the law. If it is allowed for in law then it cannot be illegal, domestically at least. The UK's constitutional settlement doesn't allow for international law to override domestic law and never has. To the extent that it can, it's because of how domestic law has integrated international bodies into its structure.
I think the problem is that some people are raising the HRA to be akin to a kind of constitution. It is not. It is an Act of Parliament, and can be amended or repealed the same way as any other (in theory; in practice there'd be all sorts of problems, not least in relation to Treaties - but parliament isn't bound by those even if the government is in certain ways).
The second, and bigger but related, problem is to look to the Courts for protection in the political sphere when in reality we need to look to ourselves. You're right that a lot of politics-as-normal rests on the Good Chap theory, and the government isn't behaving in a Good Chap way. But that's exactly why there are checks and balances (imperfect, granted), when any one part starts pushing their powers too far. If the people react against any government going beyond accepted boundaries, they won't do it: natural opposition will arise and, if necessary, the constitutional backstops will be emboldened to come into play. That is the proper constitutional process and a much better option than looking to the Courts, which if done too frequently must inevitably end with bringing the Supreme Court within the political arena and appointments made on the basis of political belief rather than judicial merit.
Imagine what would have happened to British democracy if the first referendum had simply been overturned, as you and Starmer wanted? Who would ever have voted again? What’s the fucking point? Who would have voted in any pitiful, staged 2nd referendum? Millions - including me - would have boycotted it. So you’d have kept us in the EU via an illegitimate 2nd vote with about 40% turnout and Remainers winning by 90/10
Well done. You’d have turned us into North Korea overnight and destroyed UK democracy for two generations
Thank God Boris won that election and you got fucked
https://x.com/asfarasdelgados/status/1633564841205174274?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The question implied in what you say has never been tested, nor should it be. Crown, parliament, courts are all bulwarks against arbitrary power and tyranny.
It's always a bit irritating when people get historical quotations wrong. The exact quotation should be "meine Geduld jetzt zu Ende ist!"
That said, the boat crossings issue is real - it's still about 10% of the total immigration numbers, and it's also the least desirable and most expensive to us of all the immigration streams.
It's also a problem with as far as I can see only 3 possible solutions:
1)Use the navy to sink every boat. Would probably only require one or two sinkings and a few hundred drownings to work, but obviously it's completely unacceptable to behave like that, and we shouldn't do it.
2) Get the French to catch all the people smugglers before they leave the French coast/waters. Nice idea in theory, in practice completely unworkable as the French have zero incentive to co-operate, no matter how much we pay them.
3) Remove every single boat crosser without fail to somewhere that's safe, but not in the UK. This would actually work to stop the crossings, as the Australians demonstrated when they solved their boat people problem.
My problem is that the government doesn't actually seem to be serious about solving the issue; they would rather keep losing in the courts and making a load of noise about lefty lawyers obstructing democracy (they aren't wrong about that, but it's hardly news - lawyers have been abusing the HRA for years to give "rights" to allow undesirables to stay in the country), rather than actually getting the deed done, and planes flying to Rwanda. If they don't think it's possible under the law (and it's pretty clear Jenrick and Braveman don't) either give up and try something different, or change the law, rather than keep pretending that this time it will be different.
I did not vote Labour in December 2019. However, I did think that MPs elected on a manifesto promise to oppose a No Deal Brexit were perfectly entitled to seek to prevent one. The MPs that did not have such a right were the Tory ones.
If lefties want to go down this road with a US style Supreme Court having the ability to entirely stymie parliament then I will demand a politicised Supreme Court, otherwise you could end up with a dictatorship of the unelected lefty Islington lawyers, for all eternity
Do we really want a US style Supreme Court? Really??
Over time, this tends to increase the powers of the Supreme Court, over those of Parliament and the Executive.
It is an elected dictatorship, hedged about by convention. This is well known
Is it flawless? No. Are other systems better? Maybe logically, but we have avoided revolution or ACTUAL dictatorship for 400 years unlike almost every other country in the world
When I was at University I was appalled how little I was taught. They kept wanting to speak about law which was unspeakably dull. How did those people on University Challenge answer questions on art, music, literature and science? Had I come to the wrong place?
I made inquiries but it appeared that other Universities were the same. Dull factories manned by bored lecturers teaching the same stuff again and again whilst feverishly trying to publish stuff that almost no one would read. These factories were churning out professionals with slightly less efficiency than the local college churned out car mechanics but the basic philosophy was the same.
Maybe the sciences were better.
Here's Lewis Goodall:
"Independent Courts can “undo” laws Parliament makes- it’s an important part of our constitution."
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1732730561284739298
What's the brand that everyone keeps raving about on here?
The last year we have full figures for for legal and illegal immigration the number of migrants entering by illegal boat crossings was 45,000. Total legal immigration in 2022 was 1.2 million. That is 3.75%
If the Government actually wanted to do something about reducing overall migration (which I don't think they should anyway) then they should spend the time and effort on reducing legal migration - and suffer the economic comsequences - rather than spending vast sums on stupid schemes to send people to Africa.
We made an error when we created the UK Supreme Court and named it thus in 2009. It gave less intelligent people the idea it has similar powers to SCOTUS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
“The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty,[6] so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries such as the United States. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. “
Incredible
(Is this Palestinians chanting or Israelis?)
https://news.sky.com/story/russian-hackers-used-spear-phishing-to-steal-information-from-uk-politicians-13024300
Who'd have thunk that nice Mr Putin was interfering in British politics?
The Inquiry has asked some questions, that seemed rather critical, about Independent SAGE. You might want to start with https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/18193417/C-19-Inquiry-18-October-23-Module-2-Day-12.pdf I quote:
"Q. There is one more aspect to these set of problems that I want to ask you about, which is Independent SAGE, and if we could look, please, at page 51 of your statement, subparagraph 3 at the top there, you refer to the decision in June 2020, so at around about the same time as, for example, The Guardian article and the concerns about messaging that we mentioned: "The decision in June 2020 of multiple participantsof SPI-B to join a subgroup of independent SAGE took me by surprise and put us in an awkward position." I'm going to take you to a couple of emails, but in summary did this raise a similar problem in the sense, first of all, of course these committee members were entitled to join whatever committee they liked, but it did raise issues about the effectiveness of SPI-B?
A [Prof Rubin, SPI-B chair]. Yes, that's fair, and various members joined all sorts of different committees, joined the British Psychological Society committee or the World Health Organisation or Independent SAGE in this case, but this was again raised with me specifically that, as you can see in the quotes there, it raises real issues of trust for policymakers -- or government departments are now becoming very wary of putting anything to SPI-B. So it did raise a tension.
Q. Let's look, if we may, at a couple of emails, which I think are probably those that are quoted in that paragraph. First of all, if we just look at INQ000197131. We can just look at the top half of this page. This is an exchange between you and someone called Stuart Wainwright, who we have heard evidence from, certainly a member of the secretariat, of the SAGE secretariat, possibly rather more senior than that, I forget, was he in fact the senior member of the SAGE secretariat?
A. Yes."
The discussion goes on at some further length.
Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
1) This has never actually been decided, and even if it has, see 4
2) All primary legislation becomes part of the totality of the body of law made over 800 years. Courts decide how laws interact
3) Courts (SC in the end) not parliament decide what the law is
4) The SC can overrule itself.
I do think it was Blair/Brown calling the new court “the Supreme Court” in 2009 which literally did this to midwits like you. Add in ten years of watching the West Wing and you actually believe it is just like the SCOTUS
Sooner it is replaced with general taxation for the distribution network and the BBC seeking its funding in the commercial arena the better. Get this done and implemented before the next election.
"The government is also launching a review of the BBC's funding model, Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer told MPs."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67646601
Crucially, courts can only 'undo' a law in these cases because another law allows them to and they give it precedence, not because they don't like the look of the one set aside in isolation.
It’s in their interest to sow the seeds of discord, and that’s what they’re doing, whether it’s general trolling on social media or hacking politicians specifically. For the latter, you can go back centuries, to various foreign spies trying to get information from high-up sources in governments across the world.
Yes, we’re doing it too of course.
Goodall is a plank, he is a part of a dreary centrist dad podcast where three people with slightly differing views agree with each other and occasionally get on guests who hate the govt.
Sir Keir wanted a second referendum with remain an option, in which he would campaign for remain when there was no GE in the offing
This is despite being elected in 2017 after saying respecting the result was ‘an important point of principle’
I doubt this particular Bill will get through, but the problem it will have if it does is that in effect it isn't making law but declaring facts (i.e. that Rwanda is safe). Parliament saying something is true does not make it true - if it says 2 plus 2 is 5, it still isn't, and simply isn't what Parliamentary sovereignty means.
The Bill tries to get around that by essentially saying that the courts must simply pretend that Rwanda is safe for the purposes of deciding asylum cases, whether or not it that is in fact true. So that is, it is argued, a "law" because it is a rule binding on the courts that they must simply pretend something is a fact whether or not it is.
That just isn't going to fly legally. In particular, international treaties are not made on that basis - they are meaningless if parties can then go off and pass a law saying "for all purposes, everyone must pretend we are compliant with international law".
In fairness to the Jenrick/Braverman argument (something I thought I'd never say), they are at least being honest to that extent by saying "sod it, let's break international law" - it's correct that Parliament could just make a law that says we're going rogue internationally and screw the consequences. But Sunak isn't doing that - he is pretending he has found a way around it (whether due to intellectual arrogance or simple dishonesty). But he really hasn't - it's doomed to failure, a massive waste of time and money, and idiocy whether you're pro- or anti-Rwanda policy.
How many of these have you visited ?
Including the replies.
The most breathtaking church from every country in Europe 🧵
1. Germany: Cologne Cathedral, Cologne (1880) 🇩🇪
https://twitter.com/Culture_Crit/status/1732401881136132274
All of which is perfectly sensible. Unlike the Rwanda policy that they seem to prefer to talk about which is perfectly stupid and has no real impact on the bigger picture.
Nothing spectacular there - everything used is derivable from my University web page - but it's the first time I've been subject to anything at all targeted in this way. I was much politer than I'd usually be to a suspected scammer as I didn't think it totally impossible it could be legit. I can see how people who are likely commonly cold-called by people they don't know who work for them/in other departments/organisations could easily fall for this, with sufficient background research done.
The only technicality is the razor blade you are standing on.
I love the fact that they retired them on a regular basis to live out their 50year lives.
Someone Explains How Poland Uses Clams To Control Its Water Supply And It’s Pretty Crazy
https://www.boredpanda.com/clams-measure-water-quality-poland-fat-kathy/
Eg Amiens for France? Really? Amiens??
Chartres or Notre Dame are the obvious choices, or Reims maybe, or Mont St Michel
Or if you want to be perversely modern, Corbusier’s Priory of La Tourette or his mad church at Ronchamp
Not Amiens