Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !
Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........
Victoria, NSW........
Alberta, Ontario..........
Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.
Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?
You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
Yes the problem is that devolution is not symmetrical and it's not clear how EV4EL fits into a 'long-term constitutional plan' to coin a phrase. Salmond may be doing us a favour if he helps block it as it should focus minds on coming up with a more sustainable and coherent solution.
The sustainable and coherent solution is an end to devolution.
Sustainable and coherent but would not leave the UK intact.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a devolved matter, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
I think we need the constitution of the USA here, or at least the Canadian one or Australian one. They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England?
Yes, but turn the question round: should Welsh assembly members have a vote on agricultural wages in Wales? I've no idea, but it's exactly the same question in reverse. If the courts can decide on that, then by definition they can decide on the converse of it. EVEL doesn't present any new difficulties beyond those which are already implicit in Blair's boshed-up devolution.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a devolved matter, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
I think we need the constitution of the USA here, or at least the Canadian one or Australian one. They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
Those are both federal systems*. To do the same here would require an English parliament.
I am not convinced that there is a real demand for this but it would at least be equitable.
Reducing the number of MPs would help, as would giving all 4 devolved parliaments equal lawmaking and tax raising powers.
*though not completely symetrical ones: Northern Territory is not a state so has less legeslative abilities than Queensland, as does the ACT.
Mrs.Kinnock is going to lose. A coalition government of Danish Tories and Danish UKIP is going to form there. A barrier on the Malmo bridge to cut Denmark from Sweden might exist in the near future.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a matter devolved to Cardiff, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
That will be no more of an issue with EV4EL as it is for the status quo.
Under the status quo the answer will be its either devolved or not, if its not then EVEL doesn't apply. If it is, then it is. The Welsh Assemby and Westminster, Stormont and Holyrood should have ways to work out which bodies can pass certain laws. If they don't then the present system collapses with or without EV4EL.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a devolved matter, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
I think we need the constitution of the USA here, or at least the Canadian one or Australian one. They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
Those are both federal systems. To do the same here would require an English parliament.
I am not convinced that there is a real demand for this but it would at least be equitable.
Reducing the number of MPs would help, as would giving all 4 devolved parliaments equal lawmaking and tax raising powers.
Either abolish the scottish parliament and the welsh assembly or go federal like the USA, Canada and Australia. There is no middle way.
Labour should support reducing the power of scottish MP's, it's the only way to get rid of the fear that the SNP are going to take over England and Wales.
There is an alternative which is simply to have a law that reduces the power of MP's from parties that don't have MP's out of a single region, to get rid of regionalism, lets say that they won't be allowed to vote on budgets, the Queen's speech and votes of confidence.
Something a tad more radical and more defined than EVEL.
Yes, but turn the question round: should Welsh assembly members have a vote on agricultural wages in Wales? I've no idea, but it's exactly the same question in reverse. If the courts can decide on that, then by definition they can decide on the converse of it. EVEL doesn't present any new difficulties beyond those which are already implicit in Blair's boshed-up devolution.
Exactly. The courts were able to decide if the Welsh Assembly had the power to regulate agricultural wages in Wales. The short answer is yes, the Assembly can. This was only possible because the Welsh Assembly has a limited legislative competence defined by statute. The courts have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Welsh Assembly has exceeded its legislative competence. The difference is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has an unlimited legislative competence, and save for incompatibility with EU law, there is no scope to review its enactments. The only workable solution is to create an English Parliament (fill it with current English MPs if you want) with a defined legislative competence. That would, however, require primary legislation.
Trying to do it simply by amending the Standing Orders is unworkable. Suppose Parliament had taken the perfectly arguable view in 2011 that Welsh agricultural wages were a reserved matter, and so allowed Welsh MPs to vote on the subject, whose vote was decisive. It subsequently turned out that it was a devolved matter, and they shouldn't have been able to vote on it. There would be no way you could question the validity of an enactment passed by the Westminster Parliament. The courts cannot look into whether House of Commons' procedure was followed (British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 (HL)). It is constitutionally problematic to say the least. Then multiply this problem by four to take account of the asymmetric devolution settlements Blair left the country.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a devolved matter, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
I think we need the constitution of the USA here, or at least the Canadian one or Australian one. They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
Those are both federal systems. To do the same here would require an English parliament.
I am not convinced that there is a real demand for this but it would at least be equitable.
Reducing the number of MPs would help, as would giving all 4 devolved parliaments equal lawmaking and tax raising powers.
Either abolish the scottish parliament and the welsh assembly or go federal like the USA, Canada and Australia. There is no middle way.
I was not previously a fan of the Federal approach, and I've no doubt there are many hiccups that would be involved with exactly what kind of federal set up would be most equitable, but I've come around to the view it is probably the best bet we have for a longer term solution, though my despondency on the likely fate of the Union is well known to even a cursory reader, and I'm not sure we have enough time to create such a solution, let alone whether it would indeed prove the panacea for the problems of the Union required.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a devolved matter, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
I think we need the constitution of the USA here, or at least the Canadian one or Australian one. They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
Those are both federal systems. To do the same here would require an English parliament.
I am not convinced that there is a real demand for this but it would at least be equitable.
Reducing the number of MPs would help, as would giving all 4 devolved parliaments equal lawmaking and tax raising powers.
Either abolish the scottish parliament and the welsh assembly or go federal like the USA, Canada and Australia. There is no middle way.
And as soon as that is proposed we will get demands to split England up because it is too big for the wee Scots. And even if not, why spend a billion pounds on pointless duplication?
@surbiton 'Why are we so scared of an English Parliament sitting in, say, York. 300 members.' Because we don't need or want any more jobs for the boys.
This was only possible because the Welsh Assembly has a limited legislative competence defined by statute. The courts have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Welsh Assembly has exceeded its legislative competence. The difference is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has an unlimited legislative competence, and save for incompatibility with EU law, there is no scope to review its enactments. The only workable solution is to create an English Parliament (fill it with current English MPs if you want) with a defined legislative competence. That would, however, require primary legislation.
You're being too legalistic (again!). This is the United Kingdom, the country of the Salisbury Convention and myriad other constitutional bodges. All we need in this case is a Salisbury-style convention for the twenty-first century, whereby Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs agree to absent themselves on matters which are devolved. In cases of doubt the question of whether an issue is devolved could be passed to some kind of constitutional committee and, in the last resort, to the courts.
Yes, but turn the question round: should Welsh assembly members have a vote on agricultural wages in Wales? I've no idea, but it's exactly the same question in reverse. If the courts can decide on that, then by definition they can decide on the converse of it. EVEL doesn't present any new difficulties beyond those which are already implicit in Blair's boshed-up devolution.
Exactly. The courts were able to decide if the Welsh Assembly had the power to regulate agricultural wages in Wales. The short answer is yes, the Assembly can. This was only possible because the Welsh Assembly has a limited legislative competence defined by statute. The courts have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Welsh Assembly has exceeded its legislative competence. The difference is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has an unlimited legislative competence, and save for incompatibility with EU law, there is no scope to review its enactments. The only workable solution is to create an English Parliament (fill it with current English MPs if you want) with a defined legislative competence. That would, however, require primary legislation.
Trying to do it simply by amending the Standing Orders is unworkable. Suppose Parliament had taken the perfectly arguable view in 2011 that Welsh agricultural wages were a reserved matter, and so allowed Welsh MPs to vote on the subject, whose vote was decisive. It subsequently turned out that it was a devolved matter, and they shouldn't have been able to vote on it. There would be no way you could question the validity of an enactment passed by the Westminster Parliament. The courts cannot look into whether House of Commons' procedure was followed (British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 (HL)). It is constitutionally problematic to say the least. Then multiply this problem by four to take account of the asymmetric devolution settlements Blair left the country.
I don't think you're right. If the UK Parliament were to pass a law on a devolved Scottish matter, contradicting a law passed by Holyrood, would the courts be able to get involved? I'd have thought they could.
Does the general rule that Danish elections are usually won by someone with the surname Rasmussen apply?
With the exception of Mrs.Kinnock, Denmark has been ruled by a Rasmussen since 1993, it looks like a Rasmussen again but it could be Dahl if he's got the most votes in the coalition.
Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !
Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........
Victoria, NSW........
Alberta, Ontario..........
Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.
Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?
You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
Yes the problem is that devolution is not symmetrical and it's not clear how EV4EL fits into a 'long-term constitutional plan' to coin a phrase. Salmond may be doing us a favour if he helps block it as it should focus minds on coming up with a more sustainable and coherent solution.
The sustainable and coherent solution is an end to devolution.
Sustainable and coherent but would not leave the UK intact.
I do not see why not. I do not have much faith in the SNP... Let's see how long the desire for devolution lasts.
Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a devolved matter, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
I think we need the constitution of the USA here, or at least the Canadian one or Australian one. They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
Those are both federal systems. To do the same here would require an English parliament.
I am not convinced that there is a real demand for this but it would at least be equitable.
Reducing the number of MPs would help, as would giving all 4 devolved parliaments equal lawmaking and tax raising powers.
Either abolish the scottish parliament and the welsh assembly or go federal like the USA, Canada and Australia. There is no middle way.
And as soon as that is proposed we will get demands to split England up because it is too big for the wee Scots. And even if not, why spend a billion pounds on pointless duplication?
But you could scrap the House of Lords at the same time.
Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !
Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........
Victoria, NSW........
Alberta, Ontario..........
Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.
Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?
You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
Yes the problem is that devolution is not symmetrical and it's not clear how EV4EL fits into a 'long-term constitutional plan' to coin a phrase. Salmond may be doing us a favour if he helps block it as it should focus minds on coming up with a more sustainable and coherent solution.
The sustainable and coherent solution is an end to devolution.
Sustainable and coherent but would not leave the UK intact.
I do not see why not. I do not have much faith in the SNP... Let's see how long the desire for devolution lasts.
That will be no more of an issue with EV4EL as it is for the status quo.
Under the status quo the answer will be its either devolved or not, if its not then EVEL doesn't apply. If it is, then it is. The Welsh Assemby and Westminster, Stormont and Holyrood should have ways to work out which bodies can pass certain laws. If they don't then the present system collapses with or without EV4EL.
At the moment, Law Officers and the respective Parliaments have a workable idea of what is and what isn't within the legislative competence of each assembly, and advise accordingly. No Westminster enactment can be challenged if it mistakenly legislates on a devolved matter. The number of legal challenges which have reached the Supreme Court on the validity of enactments of devolved legislatures in recent years is extraordinary (Martin v HM Advocate 2010 SLT 412 (Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 6), s 45); AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2012] 1 AC 868 (Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, ss. 1, 2 & 4); Attorney General v National Assembly for Wales Commission [2013] 1 AC 792 (Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012); Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate 2013 SLT 2 (Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, ss. 1 & 9); Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622 (Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill); Re Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill [2015] 2 WLR 481). The devolution settlements are working. The idea, however, that what is being proposed would operate in the same way as the status quo is absurd.
This was only possible because the Welsh Assembly has a limited legislative competence defined by statute. The courts have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Welsh Assembly has exceeded its legislative competence. The difference is that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has an unlimited legislative competence, and save for incompatibility with EU law, there is no scope to review its enactments. The only workable solution is to create an English Parliament (fill it with current English MPs if you want) with a defined legislative competence. That would, however, require primary legislation.
You're being too legalistic (again!). This is the United Kingdom, the country of the Salisbury Convention and myriad other constitutional bodges. All we need in this case is a Salisbury-style convention for the twenty-first century, whereby Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs agree to absent themselves on matters which are devolved. In cases of doubt the question of whether an issue is devolved could be passed to some kind of constitutional committee and, in the last resort, to the courts.
Its worth noting that the Salisbury Convention is a long time tried-and-tested Convention that has meant the Parliament Act has only very rarely needed to be used.
If Labour had any self-respect they would have initiated a Salisbury Convention of their own accord when they had an overwhelming majority in the Commons. SNP MPs wouldn't now be arriving suggesting they'd vote on devolved matters if the Labour MPs they're replacing hadn't already been doing so.
That will be no more of an issue with EV4EL as it is for the status quo.
Under the status quo the answer will be its either devolved or not, if its not then EVEL doesn't apply. If it is, then it is. The Welsh Assemby and Westminster, Stormont and Holyrood should have ways to work out which bodies can pass certain laws. If they don't then the present system collapses with or without EV4EL.
At the moment, Law Officers and the respective Parliaments have a workable idea of what is and what isn't within the legislative competence of each assembly, and advise accordingly. No Westminster enactment can be challenged if it mistakenly legislates on a devolved matter. The number of legal challenges which have reached the Supreme Court on the validity of enactments of devolved legislatures in recent years is extraordinary (Martin v HM Advocate 2010 SLT 412 (Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 6), s 45); AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2012] 1 AC 868 (Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009, ss. 1, 2 & 4); Attorney General v National Assembly for Wales Commission [2013] 1 AC 792 (Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012); Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate 2013 SLT 2 (Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, ss. 1 & 9); Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622 (Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill); Re Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill [2015] 2 WLR 481). The devolution settlements are working. The idea, however, that what is being proposed would operate in the same way as the status quo is absurd.
If Westminster can't be challenged then Cameron is able to use the Parliament Act to alter the Parliament Act to enforce EVEL. The Courts have already ruled that the Parliament Act can be used to alter the Parliament Act.
If Labour had any self-respect they would have initiated a Salisbury Convention of their own accord when they had an overwhelming majority in the Commons.
Yes, well, quite. But that was New Labour. They were constitutional vandals and were proud of it. The current government, in this as in so many other areas, has to try to clear up the mess.
It's not clear that this mess can be cleared up without Scotland seceding, but it's absolutely typical of Labour to carp at the sidelines giggling at the difficulty of doing so, when they made the mess in the first place.
(Mind you they are giggling less now that the SNP have wiped them out in Scotland.)
I don't think you're right. If the UK Parliament were to pass a law on a devolved Scottish matter, contradicting a law passed by Holyrood, would the courts be able to get involved? I'd have thought they could.
Scottish devolution has not affected the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, or the principle that it can pass any law it likes in Scotland, regardless of the opinion or any enactment of Holyrood (Scotland Act 1998, s. 28(7)). The sovereignty of the Crown of Parliament, in the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill's words, is the bedrock of the constitution. The authority for this is plain and unambiguous (AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate [2012] 1 AC 868, 911-912 per Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, 941 per Lord Reed JSC; Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Lord Advocate 2013 SLT 2, [10]-[18] (SC) per Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC).
Welcome Mr Disraeli, it is a long time since we last heard from you...
Thank You, Mr Fox, I have been busy doing other things these past five years, but I always hoped to return to PB one day. I've been catching up on recent threads and I must say that the debates seem much better than I remember, particularly when discussing left-of-centre topics.
You can't have EVEL without having a separate English government. Otherwise you're just creating a constitutional crisis if Labour gets a few percent swing at the next election.
You're being too legalistic (again!). This is the United Kingdom, the country of the Salisbury Convention and myriad other constitutional bodges. All we need in this case is a Salisbury-style convention for the twenty-first century, whereby Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs agree to absent themselves on matters which are devolved. In cases of doubt the question of whether an issue is devolved could be passed to some kind of constitutional committee and, in the last resort, to the courts.
You would have to pass a statute to confer that jurisdiction on the courts. There in no jurisdiction to do it now, and the parties to a case cannot create a jurisdiction by agreement. It is also likely that the judges will be strongly opposed. There is no way a "committee" will ever determine issues of constitutional law or statutory construction without the judges going insane. You might as well call it the Conseil d'État...
Mrs.Kinnock is going to lose. A coalition government of Danish Tories and Danish UKIP is going to form there. A barrier on the Malmo bridge to cut Denmark from Sweden might exist in the near future.
Probably, but not certainly. The latest poll published today puts the centre-left and centre-right within one seat of each other:
(in Danish but you can see a video with a funny advert in English followed by her presentation, if you want to get an impression of her - not a brilliant speaker to be honest).
(in Danish but you can see a video with a funny advert in English followed by her presentation, if you want to get an impression of her - not a brilliant speaker to be honest).
You're being too legalistic (again!). This is the United Kingdom, the country of the Salisbury Convention and myriad other constitutional bodges. All we need in this case is a Salisbury-style convention for the twenty-first century, whereby Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs agree to absent themselves on matters which are devolved. In cases of doubt the question of whether an issue is devolved could be passed to some kind of constitutional committee and, in the last resort, to the courts.
You would have to pass a statute to confer that jurisdiction on the courts. There in no jurisdiction to do it now, and the parties to a case cannot create a jurisdiction by agreement. It is also likely that the judges will be strongly opposed. There is no way a "committee" will ever determine issues of constitutional law or statutory construction without the judges going insane. You might as well call it the Conseil d'État...
I don't know you mean Liamt. Professional bodies the country over give guidance on the potential statutory construction without ousting the court's jurisdiction to give the final word, precisely so everyone else can rely on it as a quicker, cheaper and more comprehensive way of determining what their obligations are. We can have a committee that hears people, compiles and considers the evidence, and guides the process easily enough. In fact have we not got one of those already?
The Tories could fairly easily pass a EVFEL arrangement if they negotiated with Labour to get cross party agreement. It would be a much more sustainable and longlived solution too.
But if the SNP continue with their schooboy antics like today then they can easily be outvoted. If the SNP want to be listened to, then they would be well advised to develop some manners.
Yet another special operations related incident this evening in the North Eastern part of the country only two days after similar special operations activity was reported in the same district.
Either the West has decided to get busy against IS in that area, or someone has gotten themselves stuck and there is an extraction. If its the former, then you can only assume high value intelligence target for kill or capture.
Just caught the chap from Fife North East giving his maiden speech, very impressive.
Compare and contrast with Geraint Davis who just finished.
Completely barking
Geraint Davies used to be my MP (1997 to 2005). He was once described as a "laughably obvious Blairite toady" by one of the newspapers. It was my votes (going down from 408 in 2001 to 193 in 2005, and switching to Andrew Pelling) which kicked him out of the House of Commons the first time round.
can someone explain why Scottish MPs' that vot on English matters and English MP's that can't vote on Scottish matters isn't two classes of MP already?
Comments
They have both state governments and legislatures and national government and legislatures and somehow the state and the national ones don't collide or overlap.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32897393
'Why are we so scared of an English Parliament sitting in, say, York. 300 members.'
Because we don't need or want any more jobs for the boys.
I am not convinced that there is a real demand for this but it would at least be equitable.
Reducing the number of MPs would help, as would giving all 4 devolved parliaments equal lawmaking and tax raising powers.
*though not completely symetrical ones: Northern Territory is not a state so has less legeslative abilities than Queensland, as does the ACT.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_Northern_Territory
A coalition government of Danish Tories and Danish UKIP is going to form there.
A barrier on the Malmo bridge to cut Denmark from Sweden might exist in the near future.
Under the status quo the answer will be its either devolved or not, if its not then EVEL doesn't apply. If it is, then it is. The Welsh Assemby and Westminster, Stormont and Holyrood should have ways to work out which bodies can pass certain laws. If they don't then the present system collapses with or without EV4EL.
There is no middle way.
Labour should support reducing the power of scottish MP's, it's the only way to get rid of the fear that the SNP are going to take over England and Wales.
There is an alternative which is simply to have a law that reduces the power of MP's from parties that don't have MP's out of a single region, to get rid of regionalism, lets say that they won't be allowed to vote on budgets, the Queen's speech and votes of confidence.
Something a tad more radical and more defined than EVEL.
Trying to do it simply by amending the Standing Orders is unworkable. Suppose Parliament had taken the perfectly arguable view in 2011 that Welsh agricultural wages were a reserved matter, and so allowed Welsh MPs to vote on the subject, whose vote was decisive. It subsequently turned out that it was a devolved matter, and they shouldn't have been able to vote on it. There would be no way you could question the validity of an enactment passed by the Westminster Parliament. The courts cannot look into whether House of Commons' procedure was followed (British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765 (HL)). It is constitutionally problematic to say the least. Then multiply this problem by four to take account of the asymmetric devolution settlements Blair left the country.
Good night all.
Look at the alternative Queen’s speech and wonder what might have been
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/queens-speech-miliband
'Because the law under which they were elected did not state that they could not vote on certain matters.'
But as per the manifesto the government has just been elected on it's being changed now.
Do try to keep up, it's really not that complicated.
Goodnight.
If Labour had any self-respect they would have initiated a Salisbury Convention of their own accord when they had an overwhelming majority in the Commons. SNP MPs wouldn't now be arriving suggesting they'd vote on devolved matters if the Labour MPs they're replacing hadn't already been doing so.
Brilliant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/fifa/11634704/FBI-charts-24-years-of-footballs-bribery-and-corruption.html
It's not clear that this mess can be cleared up without Scotland seceding, but it's absolutely typical of Labour to carp at the sidelines giggling at the difficulty of doing so, when they made the mess in the first place.
(Mind you they are giggling less now that the SNP have wiped them out in Scotland.)
http://www.politiko.dk/nyheder/ny-maaling-varsler-gyservalg
(in Danish but you can see a video with a funny advert in English followed by her presentation, if you want to get an impression of her - not a brilliant speaker to be honest).
Yet another special operations related incident this evening in the North Eastern part of the country only two days after similar special operations activity was reported in the same district.
Either the West has decided to get busy against IS in that area, or someone has gotten themselves stuck and there is an extraction. If its the former, then you can only assume high value intelligence target for kill or capture.
http://www.independent.co.uk/