That’s whose prerogative? – politicalbetting.com
That’s whose prerogative? – politicalbetting.com
Rather quietly, the government announced this week the death sentence for the unfairly unloved Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. In truth, it was not that bad a piece of legislation; one which took a power away from the executive and handed it to parliament, at least in small measure.
Comments
-
Jack W calling0
-
Morning all,
Excellent and interesting header. Way above what I am likely to read in the newspapers later.2 -
I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.0
-
What are you calling me, young Jack? Something nice I hope.JACK_W said:Jack W calling
1 -
i think David is suggesting that that option is not openIshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
Excellent thread header Herders.
At Chez W, down the centuries, I've found it a source of marital harmony, calm, and indeed bliss to affirm the prerogative of Mrs Jack W.
3 -
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.03
Democrats 1.03
Biden PV 1.02
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.03
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.03
Trump ECV 210-239 1.06
Biden ECV 300-329 1.05
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.04
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.05
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 no offers
AZ Dem 1.04
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.03
NV Dem 1.03
PA Dem 1.04
WI Dem 1.04
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.07
0 -
I'm calling you my faithful, if at times somewhat playful, Deputy TOTY ....Peter_the_Punter said:
What are you calling me, young Jack? Something nice I hope.JACK_W said:Jack W calling
0 -
Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).0 -
Apols if already noted but overnight California certified their results and officially Biden has now crossed the 270 threshold.
Nudge, nudge (with a sledgehammer) Betfair,4 -
I might have spent a bit of time going through US constitutional law recently.... No idea why
We are not a republic, Miller does not and our courts do not have the reach vested to SCOTUS by Marbury, Miller decided these are questions for parliament not the courts.0 -
The mischief of the FTPA , in my opinion, was the qualifying majority for its removal. If a majority in Parliament want another election that should happen. Those who voted for it can be held accountable by the British people soon enough.
A beleaguered PM, a Theresa May for example, should only be able to have an election if she can persuade a majority in the Commons to vote for it. If Parliament instead resolves to replace her with someone who can command a majority that is what would happen, Churchill style.
What the repeal should be looking to achieve is nothing more and nothing less than this: that an artificial barrier inserted to protect a minority partner in a Coalition is removed and Parliament once again regulates its own affairs unimpeded. We do not need prerogatives or any such nonsense giving powers to those who happen to be the executive at any particular moment.11 -
But I don't think that is certain. "Under the common law of England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed."[1]" Obviously we can't stick new bits on to the prerogative that weren't there before, but the case that an existing bit of it is brought back from limbo by the repeal is certainly arguable.MikeSmithson said:
i think David is suggesting that that option is not openIshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
Kay v. Goodwin (1830) 6 Bing. 576, per Tindal C.J.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal#cite_note-10 -
JACK_W said:
I'm calling you my faithful, if at times somewhat playful, Deputy TOTY ....Peter_the_Punter said:
What are you calling me, young Jack? Something nice I hope.JACK_W said:Jack W calling
Oooooo....you are awful. But I like you.JACK_W said:
I'm calling you my faithful, if at times somewhat playful, Deputy TOTY ....Peter_the_Punter said:
What are you calling me, young Jack? Something nice I hope.JACK_W said:Jack W calling
2 -
They could always annul the law like the Cavalier parliament after the civil war expunged the Commonwealth's legal history from existence.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-551949880 -
I suspect the next big date in the BF saga is the ECV meeting on 14th.JACK_W said:Apols if already noted but overnight California certified their results and officially Biden has now crossed the 270 threshold.
Nudge, nudge (with a sledgehammer) Betfair,
If that votes for Biden then BF will have another decision to make: do they plough on with the POTUS market until the 21st Jan when Biden is physically holding the blessed bible and swearing the oath?1 -
BUTIshmaelZ said:
But I don't think that is certain. "Under the common law of England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed."[1]" Obviously we can't stick new bits on to the prerogative that weren't there before, but the case that an existing bit of it is brought back from limbo by the repeal is certainly arguable.MikeSmithson said:
i think David is suggesting that that option is not openIshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
Kay v. Goodwin (1830) 6 Bing. 576, per Tindal C.J.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal#cite_note-1
16 General savings.
(1)Without prejudice to section 15, where an Act repeals an enactment, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears,—
(a)revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect;
Interpretation Act 1978
But but
the contrary intention *does* appear in the Bill.0 -
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?0 -
Bobby Brown, surely?0
-
rip Brian Kerr, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Supreme Court Justice.1
-
Indeed so.rottenborough said:
I suspect the next big date in the BF saga is the ECV meeting on 14th.JACK_W said:Apols if already noted but overnight California certified their results and officially Biden has now crossed the 270 threshold.
Nudge, nudge (with a sledgehammer) Betfair,
If that votes for Biden then BF will have another decision to make: do they plough on with the POTUS market until the 21st Jan when Biden is physically holding the blessed bible and swearing the oath?
I'm minded to open a book on what will happen first - Betfair settling this market or Mrs Jack W signing a declaration of intent to not set foot in Bond Street ever again !!!!!!
I'm not hopeful ....
0 -
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?0 -
If Parliament doesn't like the interpretation it should reject the proposed legislation.IshmaelZ said:
BUTIshmaelZ said:
But I don't think that is certain. "Under the common law of England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed."[1]" Obviously we can't stick new bits on to the prerogative that weren't there before, but the case that an existing bit of it is brought back from limbo by the repeal is certainly arguable.MikeSmithson said:
i think David is suggesting that that option is not openIshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
Kay v. Goodwin (1830) 6 Bing. 576, per Tindal C.J.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal#cite_note-1
16 General savings.
(1)Without prejudice to section 15, where an Act repeals an enactment, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears,—
(a)revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect;
Interpretation Act 1978
But but
the contrary intention *does* appear in the Bill.1 -
Without the FTPA, the May govt may well have collapsed in early 2019 and we’d be 18 months into a Corbyn government. So we can thank it for preventing that at least. Otherwise a terrible piece of legislation, with the unconstructive political gridlock of last year self evidently not in the public interest.
Don’t care what chicanery is used to repeal, just do it.1 -
If the supreme authority in the UK is the Crown in Parliament what principle prevents an Act of Parliament specifically granting a power to the crown?
I agree that the issue of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts is doubtful.1 -
What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
SCOTUK could be unmade by an Act of Parliament.algarkirk said:If the supreme authority in the UK is the Crown in Parliament what principle prevents an Act of Parliament specifically granting a power to the crown?
I agree that the issue of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts is doubtful.1 -
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
0 -
Yes, so the underlying assumption is that the Monarch has absolute power, except where constrained by Parliament, so if the constraint is removed the power is restored.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
Hopefully Macron won't throw the baby out with the bathwater regarding a deal, but we haven't half put ourselves in a precarious position with a historically adversarial neighbournoneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.0 -
What I think it should be replaced with:
- Keep the rules for election timing (although I'd prefer four years max).
- The House of Commons can dissolve itself with a simple majority, but the PM can't do it directly. No point setting the bar any higher if it can be circumvented anyway.
- Votes of no confidence have no legal effect. If you want to replace the PM, pass a motion asking HMQ to appoint a particular person. Don't make her guess at who might command a majority.1 -
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice0 -
On topic, good riddance to possibly the worst piece of legislation since the Dangerous Dogs Act.3
-
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Still, even if only people on this register were contacted that would still be a huge portion of the population. That's not even considering a push to get people who don't have a GP to get vaccinated.IanB2 said:
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.0 -
3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.0 -
For sure. And, whichever list is used, the actual penetration achieved won't get to 100%.RobD said:
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Still, even if only people on this register were contacted that would still be a huge portion of the population. That's not even considering a push to get people who don't have a GP to get vaccinated.IanB2 said:
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.
The point nevertheless is that, if you're managing the exercise, the accuracy of the data - the number of duplicates, the number of omissions, and the number of errors - dead people, wrong details, people who have emigrated etc. - is reasonably significant in terms of how effective the whole exercise will prove to be.
My guess is that there are a lot of people still registered with GPs at locations some distance from where they currently live. Particularly younger people who are mobile and rarely need to trouble the GP.0 -
Almost everyone in the elderly or at-risk groups should be on the GP database, but after that there will be an awful lot of mopping up to do.RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.
Thankfully, the group most in need of mopping up is young and middle aged healthy men, followed by foreign residents and long-term visitors. They’ll mostly self-present, as soon as nightclubs, festivals and airlines want people either tested or vaccinated.1 -
Constitutional lawyers gonna constitutionally law. You can say it's politics but it's their job.
The ingredient that just about holds the UK's rickety constitution together is convention, which wasn't really touched on in the article. Supreme Court judges might go with convention in their decisions but if people are ripping up constitutional convention, judges have no choice but to go back to first principles.0 -
We don’t need 100% or anything like it. The R rate will start to collapse when we get near 20%. Eventually there will be too few vulnerable to infection for the virus to survive.IanB2 said:
For sure. And, whichever list is used, the actual penetration achieved won't get to 100%.RobD said:
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Still, even if only people on this register were contacted that would still be a huge portion of the population. That's not even considering a push to get people who don't have a GP to get vaccinated.IanB2 said:
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.
The point nevertheless is that, if you're managing the exercise, the accuracy of the data - the number of duplicates, the number of omissions, and the number of errors - dead people, wrong details, people who have emigrated etc. - is reasonably significant in terms of how effective the whole exercise will prove to be.
My guess is that there are a lot of people still registered with GPs at locations some distance from where they currently live. Particularly younger people who are mobile and rarely need to trouble the GP.0 -
You seem to be suggesting it's going to be a show-stopper? We were discussing this very same thing a week or so ago and @Foxy was suggesting that the database is ~ 90% accurate.IanB2 said:
For sure. And, whichever list is used, the actual penetration achieved won't get to 100%.RobD said:
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Still, even if only people on this register were contacted that would still be a huge portion of the population. That's not even considering a push to get people who don't have a GP to get vaccinated.IanB2 said:
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.
The point nevertheless is that, if you're managing the exercise, the accuracy of the data - the number of duplicates, the number of omissions, and the number of errors - dead people, wrong details, people who have emigrated etc. - is reasonably significant in terms of how effective the whole exercise will prove to be.0 -
Macron’s obstinate attitude is in danger of blowing the whole thing up. He seems to be looking forward to a line of trucks stretching from Calais to Paris.Pulpstar said:
Hopefully Macron won't throw the baby out with the bathwater regarding a deal, but we haven't half put ourselves in a precarious position with a historically adversarial neighbournoneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
They could have called it WELSHUK but then no-one would have been sure if they would stick to their decisions.Pulpstar said:
SCOTUK could be unmade by an Act of Parliament.algarkirk said:If the supreme authority in the UK is the Crown in Parliament what principle prevents an Act of Parliament specifically granting a power to the crown?
I agree that the issue of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts is doubtful.0 -
I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)7 -
Australia was looking rather wistfully at the European Union in its last Foreign Policy White paper, implying how nice it would be if it could be a member.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55167882
Maybe Australia should move to [former] UK rules?1 -
-
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.5 -
The problem is that they are not necessarily doing either.FF43 said:Constitutional lawyers gonna constitutionally law. You can say it's politics but it's their job.
The ingredient that just about holds the UK's rickety constitution together is convention, which wasn't really touched on in the article. Supreme Court judges might go with convention in their decisions but if people are ripping up constitutional convention, judges have no choice but to go back to first principles.0 -
Personally, I think the new legislation is fundamentally flawed because, in a very strict sense, the power to dissolve Parliament was NOT a prerogative power - it was a power explicitly given to the monarch by legislation.
Indeed, the purpose of the Triennial Acts preceding the Septennial Act was explicitly to circumscribe the King's power to dissolve Parliament without replacement - so the very broad old prerogative power was replaced with a power under legislation to dissolve but with a requirement to hold elections.
So, in my view, and appreciating other legal views are available, it was always a "prerogative-LIKE" power, not a prerogative power. The text of the Act is therefore meaningless - there is no prerogative power to restore. I don't really understand why they haven't taken the obvious route of replicating the text of the Septennial Act as amended (it was a very short Act) and introducing it whilst repealing the FTPA.3 -
SCOTUS creates law too. Roe v Wade comes to mind. There is always a balancing act between rules to protect minorities and the right of the majority to decide but we have not been getting that balance right in recent times. The “rule of law” fetish that David refers to is a major part of the problem. It is absolutely essential in its correct area but dangerous and undemocratic outside it.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)0 -
They should stick their prerogatives right up their jacksies.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
I never had a problem with the principle of the Fixed Term Act, and many of the so called problems people would declare it would cause, like a lack of things to do in the final year, were cultural issues not problems with the legislation itself. 5 years was chosen for political reasons but made sense as it was the maximum available length (in normal times) even if it was rarely the case parliaments lasted that long. And as we saw, it never prevented the will of parliament for a new election if that's what it wanted, and in fact parliament might say no if a government wanted one.
But none of the parties liked it and the Brexit deadlock resulted in a rather ridiculous situation.1 -
Not really. It ruled that under the Constitution, laws prohibiting abortions altogether were impermissible. That’s striking down a law.DavidL said:
SCOTUS creates law too. Roe v Wade comes to mind. There is always a balancing act between rules to protect minorities and the right of the majority to decide but we have not been getting that balance right in recent times. The “rule of law” fetish that David refers to is a major part of the problem. It is absolutely essential in its correct area but dangerous and undemocratic outside it.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)
Similarly Brown v Board of Education, it ruled segregated schools under ‘equal but different’ unconstitutional.
That didn’t create new law by default, as SCOTUK did by declaring that the royal prerogative of proroguing parliament for more than a week had been eliminated by the decision of a Scottish judge in 1917.0 -
UK holds all the cards, he is bluffing surely.Sandpit said:
Macron’s obstinate attitude is in danger of blowing the whole thing up. He seems to be looking forward to a line of trucks stretching from Calais to Paris.Pulpstar said:
Hopefully Macron won't throw the baby out with the bathwater regarding a deal, but we haven't half put ourselves in a precarious position with a historically adversarial neighbournoneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
SCOTUS can't create de jure law but they can make it in fact depending on how the US constitution is interpreted. They have far too much power.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)0 -
On the contrary, the problem with Miller was the GOVERNMENT sticking their noses in where it didn't belong in that they had abused the power to prorogue in a manner which, had it stood, would have allowed a Government to prorogue Parliament for ANY reason (or none) and for ANY period. Effectively, the Goverment could have governed without Parliament, which is in fact what the original Triennial Acts preceding the Septennial Act got rid of (but with the King rather than Government).DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.
It was an absolute nonsense to argue the power to prorogue was non-justicable, but the Government lawyers were forced to do it because no Government minister from the PM down would sign a witness statement saying that the reason for the lengthy prorogation was preparation of a Queen's Speech rather than simply to prevent Parliament sitting. That was because they'd have been nailed for perjury... even though the PM had told that barefaced lie in the Commons.7 -
This is the price we pay for Boris.DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.1 -
I don't disagree with your basic premise, however we have a Government hell-bent on divesting itself of any scrutiny. Ram the HoL, off-load judicial review etc.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)
As David's excellent header implies the repeal of FTPA could be a dry run of what is planned to follow.
I accept my dislike and distrust of Johnson and his acolytes borders on the insane, but the damage they do to sustain themselves, appears tangible enough to me.3 -
Make you vomit, the clowns think some doddery old German bird has absolute power and we are supposed to be in the 21st Century. Explains why the UK is down the toilet and has reached banana republic territory.LostPassword said:
Yes, so the underlying assumption is that the Monarch has absolute power, except where constrained by Parliament, so if the constraint is removed the power is restored.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
The prorogation was because Ken Clarke et al wanted 3 extra days to scrutinise the most significant legislation in 50 years. Boris couldnt handle it, or more likely decided there was electoral advantage in pretending he couldnt, so prorogued illegally.noneoftheabove said:
This is the price we pay for Boris.DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.
Come 2020 not only are the ERG complaining that they didnt understand said piece of legislation, Boris and HMG are saying its such a dud they need to break international law too!
Yet somehow its the judiciaries fault, not Boris Johnsons???7 -
That is true. And that is why I am hoping to have a sane Labour Party to vote for to vote them out at the next election.Mexicanpete said:
I don't disagree with your basic premise, however we have a Government hell-bent on divesting itself of any scrutiny. Ram the HoL, off-load judicial review etc.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)
As David's excellent header implies the repeal of FTPA could be a dry run of what is planned to follow.
I accept my dislike and distrust of Johnson and his acolytes borders on the insane, but the damage they do to sustain themselves, appears tangible enough to me.
When a judge does something that is totally insane if not actually subverting the law, how do we deal with them?
I’d feel an awful lot more comfortable about judicial oversight if there was a way of removing judges who think they are the law, rather than the enforcers of laws made by others. A recall system or a two-thirds vote in Parliament, maybe.1 -
There are always people moving house, or accommodation ....... significant difference ..... who haven't yet or have forgotten to, change 'their' GP. And the transfer of info between practices takes time. People sometimes register with a new GP, when they need medical services, before de-registering. They're supposed to be temporary residents in those circumstances, of course.RobD said:
You seem to be suggesting it's going to be a show-stopper? We were discussing this very same thing a week or so ago and @Foxy was suggesting that the database is ~ 90% accurate.IanB2 said:
For sure. And, whichever list is used, the actual penetration achieved won't get to 100%.RobD said:
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Still, even if only people on this register were contacted that would still be a huge portion of the population. That's not even considering a push to get people who don't have a GP to get vaccinated.IanB2 said:
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.
The point nevertheless is that, if you're managing the exercise, the accuracy of the data - the number of duplicates, the number of omissions, and the number of errors - dead people, wrong details, people who have emigrated etc. - is reasonably significant in terms of how effective the whole exercise will prove to be.
People leave the country and don't tell their GP.
IIRC it's particularly a problem in areas with a ;lot of rented property, where people move frequently. There was a big effort a few years ago to remove inactive patients from GP lists and, again IIRC, there's supposed to be one every so often. Practices are supposed to write to people with whom they haven't had contact for so many years every so often, but it's often one of those jobs which is done every so often when someone gets round to it.
This might turn out to be one of those times of course. Accidental benefit.0 -
Like many I think this government needs to be considered very cautiously on rule of law issues. I dont support judicial overreach into the realm of politics or judges interpreting the intent of parliament too widely if legislative intent was pretty narrow, but governments despise scrutiny and restraint, this one in particular, and better to be too careful than not.
So the issues around the revival or pseudorevival of the prerogative do matter, perhaps over the revival itself when IIRC neither party wanted to keep the existing Act. The government should not be petty because of the prorogation case for instance, and seek to grab more power than is needed.
But on the whole, it doesn't seem many people really minded all that much that PMs could in effect call a GE whenever they wanted, and given oppositions demand mandates when PMs change mid term few in politics can object to the principle of in effect restoring the ability to more easily hold a GE. So while the detail and process of restoring or reviving that ability is still important to debate, it's not as big a deal as it could be.0 -
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
-
I had a dream I got paid by Betfair last night.
Just a dream.0 -
What do you fear a Corbyn government might have done that this Boris government has not done? Would Corbyn have sought to place himself above the law (see this thread)?moonshine said:Without the FTPA, the May govt may well have collapsed in early 2019 and we’d be 18 months into a Corbyn government. So we can thank it for preventing that at least. Otherwise a terrible piece of legislation, with the unconstructive political gridlock of last year self evidently not in the public interest.
Don’t care what chicanery is used to repeal, just do it.3 -
I'm not qualified to comment on the discussion, interesting thjough it is, and i'm not sure what I think about the FTPA. But your suggested revenge for a perceived bad judgment in the past is a terrible basis for legislation. If it is felt that judges exceed their powers, then that should be addressed directly - for example by the current proposals (which I disagree with) restricting Judicial Review. These are in my opinion misconceived (because their indirect effect is strengthen the power of the State over individuals) but they do at least address the issue of perceived overreach. Casually throwing in a restriction on judicial challenge to an electoral act because the Government is annoyed by something else sets a dangerous precedent.DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.3 -
I lack the knowledge to severely question arcane legal interpretations, and on one level liked the outcome as Boris was acting shittily, but I will say that usually whenever I read legal judgements I am persuaded by them as senior judges are very good at that , regardless of what I thought about the care in question. And I was still persuaded by their arguments overall, but there were elements within it that were not very persuasive.DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.0 -
ydoethur said:
That is true. And that is why I am hoping to have a sane Labour Party to vote for to vote them out at the next election.Mexicanpete said:
I don't disagree with your basic premise, however we have a Government hell-bent on divesting itself of any scrutiny. Ram the HoL, off-load judicial review etc.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)
As David's excellent header implies the repeal of FTPA could be a dry run of what is planned to follow.
I accept my dislike and distrust of Johnson and his acolytes borders on the insane, but the damage they do to sustain themselves, appears tangible enough to me.
When a judge does something that is totally insane if not actually subverting the law, how do we deal with them?
I’d feel an awful lot more comfortable about judicial oversight if there was a way of removing judges who think they are the law, rather than the enforcers of laws made by others. A recall system or a two-thirds vote in Parliament, maybe.
Supreme Court Act 1981
Tenure of office of judges of Supreme Court
...
(3) A person appointed to an office to whichthis section applies shall hold that office during good behaviour, subject to a power of removal by Her Majesty on an address presented to Her by both Houses of Parliament.0 -
It's an interesting point. If power flows up from the people then the gov and crown have such power as is explicitly given and no more, but if power flows down from god and crown, it is only limited and constrained when explicitly stated?LostPassword said:
Yes, so the underlying assumption is that the Monarch has absolute power, except where constrained by Parliament, so if the constraint is removed the power is restored.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
Ashamed to admit I had my first pb dream this week. A regular informed and accurate poster declared that restrictions would be lasting another 5 years - I was very concerned until I woke up.Casino_Royale said:I had a dream I got paid by Betfair last night.
Just a dream.0 -
Yes and no on Roe v Wade. There is quite obviously debate on the degree of judicial activism in that case and, whilst I disagree with them, the originalist/textualist approach of conservative justices is one way to approach it. But the point the liberal justices in that case would take is that they weren't "creating" law - that the Constitution, and particularly the Due Process clause (14th amendement) prevented over-intrusive regulation of abortion by states, so they laid out the parameters within which states could intervene constitent with the US Constitution.DavidL said:
SCOTUS creates law too. Roe v Wade comes to mind. There is always a balancing act between rules to protect minorities and the right of the majority to decide but we have not been getting that balance right in recent times. The “rule of law” fetish that David refers to is a major part of the problem. It is absolutely essential in its correct area but dangerous and undemocratic outside it.ydoethur said:I suppose the question really is do we trust judges more than politicians?
Well, I despise politicians. Particularly this lot.
But I trust judges far less. One judge, making bizarre rulings on alleged blackmail, very nearly created a situation where a court had created a privacy law in defiance of parliament (and but for John Hemming, probably would have succeeded) merely because he had a personal horror of seeing salacious details of people’s private lives in the papers.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has made some very strange rulings in the last few years, notably on prorogation, and it’s difficult to escape the sense that they did so in order to feel important and to annoy a government they didn’t like.
If I don’t have the power to kick out dodgy judges, I don’t want them making laws on my behalf. At least with Parliament I can vote the bastards out if they annoy me.
(In the US it’s a little different, as the SOCTUS can strike down laws, rather than create them.)0 -
I suspect dealing with China is going to be a problem for Britain. This country has not, historically, had a good relationship with China, and indeed in the mid and late the 19thC threw it's weight about when dealing with what it apparently arrogantly perceived to be a failing and inferior state. Now that state, rejuvenated, is neither weak nor failing and I fear that the saying about revenge applies.noneoftheabove said:
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678821 -
You say "if the prerogative was destroyed by the FTPA, it cannot be revived". But the FTPA, like any other Act, had royal assent. Might it not be thought that in giving such assent the monarch undertook not to exercise a certain power? If so the Monarch did not forever surrender the power. Repeal of the Act is then to be thought of as revival of the ability to exercise a power.
Compare: You assent to being given heavy dose of a sleeping tablet, knowing that for some while you don't be able to do anything, but knowing also that you may be woken up, and when woken will be able to do whatever you were able to do before you were sent into sleep.0 -
I think this is a sensible comment. If there is a problem then a proportionate and considered solution is required, not reacting in a funk out of annoyance, like those who immediately suggested the need to politically screen judges because of the outcome.NickPalmer said:
I'm not qualified to comment on the discussion, interesting thjough it is, and i'm not sure what I think about the FTPA. But your suggested revenge for a perceived bad judgment in the past is a terrible basis for legislation. If it is felt that judges exceed their powers, then that should be addressed directly - for example by the current proposals (which I disagree with) restricting Judicial Review. These are in my opinion misconceived (because their indirect effect is strengthen the power of the State over individuals) but they do at least address the issue of perceived overreach. Casually throwing in a restriction on judicial challenge to an electoral act because the Government is annoyed by something else sets a dangerous precedent.DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.
This is not an issue that is time critical either.0 -
He would have monetised an enormous budget deficit. Oh. He would have ennobled communists with IRA sympathies. Hmm... Maybe he would have gone after the family unit by banning things like hugging each other and placing decrees on how and who we could meet? Umm... Nationalise the railways! Bankrupt the private sector!DecrepiterJohnL said:
What do you fear a Corbyn government might have done that this Boris government has not done? Would Corbyn have sought to place himself above the law (see this thread)?moonshine said:Without the FTPA, the May govt may well have collapsed in early 2019 and we’d be 18 months into a Corbyn government. So we can thank it for preventing that at least. Otherwise a terrible piece of legislation, with the unconstructive political gridlock of last year self evidently not in the public interest.
Don’t care what chicanery is used to repeal, just do it.
The irony is not lost on me.1 -
I think legal principles, even ones people dislike, are unlikely to be a reason people consider a nation that way. I doubt theres a person on this planet who genuinely thinks legal fictions around monarchical power make a county bananas. Suggesting people have alternative nationality or ethnicity to the reality doesn't help the case either.malcolmg said:
Make you vomit, the clowns think some doddery old German bird has absolute power and we are supposed to be in the 21st Century. Explains why the UK is down the toilet and has reached banana republic territory.LostPassword said:
Yes, so the underlying assumption is that the Monarch has absolute power, except where constrained by Parliament, so if the constraint is removed the power is restored.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogative intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
1 -
Mr. Moonshine, we agree that the effect of Corbyn economics would be comparable to a life-changing global pandemic.1
-
An excellent article David - Thank you.
Most of our periods of Govt between elections are 1 party dictatorships for a few years before that is renewed or another party takes over. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but in reality parliament, for the greater part, does not hold the executive to account. We actually had a period where that did happen. Admittedly it was a shambles, but that was primarily because it was all new. The added advantage was people were interested. The parliament channel was actually getting millions of viewers as people took an interest.
I appreciate that what I described was unusual because it was Brexit and for more day to day stuff we are not going to get the same level of interest by the public, but it might be better than what we have now.
Of course PR and coalition Govt also bring about that greater interest and debate in parliament rather than 1 party blasting through what it wants for the majority of the time, with a parliament pretending to hold it to account.2 -
I wonder whether it was our PM or his former top adviser that have a tendency to react in a funk out of annoyance? If the former this will be pushed through. If the latter, some parts might be quietly forgotten, especially if his new top advisor has much to do with it.kle4 said:
I think this is a sensible comment. If there is a problem then a proportionate and considered solution is required, not reacting in a funk out of annoyance, like those who immediately suggested the need to politically screen judges because of the outcome.NickPalmer said:
I'm not qualified to comment on the discussion, interesting thjough it is, and i'm not sure what I think about the FTPA. But your suggested revenge for a perceived bad judgment in the past is a terrible basis for legislation. If it is felt that judges exceed their powers, then that should be addressed directly - for example by the current proposals (which I disagree with) restricting Judicial Review. These are in my opinion misconceived (because their indirect effect is strengthen the power of the State over individuals) but they do at least address the issue of perceived overreach. Casually throwing in a restriction on judicial challenge to an electoral act because the Government is annoyed by something else sets a dangerous precedent.DavidL said:
This is part of the price we pay for Miller II. The courts stuck their noses in where they don’t belong for what seemed good reasons in the short term and we pay a long term price. It was ever thus and our courts used to have more self discipline.algarkirk said:3 Non-justiciability of revived prerogative powers
A court of law may not question—
(a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section
2,
(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or
(c) the limits or extent of those powers.
I think this section of the draft bill will receive attention and can't survive scrutiny.
This is not an issue that is time critical either.0 -
There's a very long-running debate over when prerogative powers are abolished and when they are merely in abeyance. But the consensus is that where explicitly abolished, they can't be revived.alednam said:You say "if the prerogative was destroyed by the FTPA, it cannot be revived". But the FTPA, like any other Act, had royal assent. Might it not be thought that in giving such assent the monarch undertook not to exercise a certain power? If so the Monarch did not forever surrender the power. Repeal of the Act is then to be thought of as revival of the ability to exercise a power.
Compare: You assent to being given heavy dose of a sleeping tablet, knowing that for some while you don't be able to do anything, but knowing also that you may be woken up, and when woken will be able to do whatever you were able to do before you were sent into sleep.
You can give the monarch a statutory power, but that isn't the same as a prerogative power, which is by definition a residual power in the absence of legislation.0 -
-
I feel you are really overestimating our importance in the grand scheme of things. Brexit simply makes Britain less relevant to everyone.noneoftheabove said:
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
All nations deal or dealt arrogantly with nations less powerful than them. China certainly has in the past and does now, and nurses grievances from that time as a strategy, but do we think theyd be less inclined to throw their weight around if we'd been nicer back then? No, that just gives them flimsy pretext, but it's as much a joke as when we talk about the Treaty of Troyes as a reason to treat the French bad, only they pretend it's not a joke. China will do what it will do, but I highly doubt 19th C actions play any genuine part of their calculations.OldKingCole said:
I suspect dealing with China is going to be a problem for Britain. This country has not, historically, had a good relationship with China, and indeed in the mid and late the 19thC threw it's weight about when dealing with what it apparently arrogantly perceived to be a failing and inferior state. Now that state, rejuvenated, is neither weak nor failing and I fear that the saying about revenge applies.noneoftheabove said:
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55167882
So yes itll be a problem for us, but not really for that reason. Really we've had little historical relations with them at all compared to their neighbours.2 -
I expect GPs like being paid ~£100 per year for each dead person on their list. The dead don't pester them with health issues. Oh dear, cynical me.OldKingCole said:
There are always people moving house, or accommodation ....... significant difference ..... who haven't yet or have forgotten to, change 'their' GP. And the transfer of info between practices takes time. People sometimes register with a new GP, when they need medical services, before de-registering. They're supposed to be temporary residents in those circumstances, of course.RobD said:
You seem to be suggesting it's going to be a show-stopper? We were discussing this very same thing a week or so ago and @Foxy was suggesting that the database is ~ 90% accurate.IanB2 said:
For sure. And, whichever list is used, the actual penetration achieved won't get to 100%.RobD said:
Yeah, I edited my post to reflect that. Still, even if only people on this register were contacted that would still be a huge portion of the population. That's not even considering a push to get people who don't have a GP to get vaccinated.IanB2 said:
The 2018 data release says "Between the ages of 5 and 80 there are more people registered at GP practices than are projected to be resident in England"RobD said:
Good enough for a very sizeable chunk of the population, especially those more at risk who are much more likely to be signed up in the first place.IanB2 said:
I guess so. It contains more people than are believed to be resident in the UK, suggesting a degree of double registration and/or a dataset that isn't fully purged of those no longer with us. Yet on the other hand London A&E units get about 150,000 visits annually from people who aren't registered with a GP at all, suggesting a good measure of non-registration as well.RobD said:
Two weeks in the grand scheme of things isn't that much. And as for database, the GP registry, surely?IanB2 said:
It looks like overcoming the practical issues is why that aspect of the rollout is back to the 14th.RobD said:
Also FPT, from this article it looks like vaccinations will be done in care homes.IanB2 said:Picking up the FPT on vaccine deployment - it looks like there is a three-phase plan, with only the first having been worked up in detail currently:
- deployment from 50 'hospital hubs': the larger hospitals, where people will go to be vaccinated
- more local 'vaccination centres'
- community vaccination via (some) GP practices
To get the first batch deployed as quickly as possible, and to avoid the technical complications or potential wastage around breaking the 750-batches, the initial deployment is via the hospital hubs.
Aside from the island's particular issues, what isn't clear is how the phase one method of deployment is going to be reconciled with the priority order, which puts the eldest and most infirm people at the front of the queue; those who it will be most difficult to bring into the 50 hub hospitals (existing inpatients excepted).
Possibly the reason that existing inpatients have very recently been bumped up to the top of the list is because they don't have to be transported (at least for the first dose).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55194988
Is this the time to wonder what database they intend to use to try and make sure they reach everybody?
It doesn't contain more people than are resident though:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/general-practice-data-hub/patients-registered-at-a-gp-practice
Edit, oops.. no, it does. I thought it was England & Wales.
The point nevertheless is that, if you're managing the exercise, the accuracy of the data - the number of duplicates, the number of omissions, and the number of errors - dead people, wrong details, people who have emigrated etc. - is reasonably significant in terms of how effective the whole exercise will prove to be.
People leave the country and don't tell their GP.
IIRC it's particularly a problem in areas with a ;lot of rented property, where people move frequently. There was a big effort a few years ago to remove inactive patients from GP lists and, again IIRC, there's supposed to be one every so often. Practices are supposed to write to people with whom they haven't had contact for so many years every so often, but it's often one of those jobs which is done every so often when someone gets round to it.
This might turn out to be one of those times of course. Accidental benefit.3 -
In fairness you have to grant that he may well have made a better fist of dealing with the virus and of course all that State intervention is so Labour! Ironies, eh?moonshine said:
He would have monetised an enormous budget deficit. Oh. He would have ennobled communists with IRA sympathies. Hmm... Maybe he would have gone after the family unit by banning things like hugging each other and placing decrees on how and who we could meet? Umm... Nationalise the railways! Bankrupt the private sector!DecrepiterJohnL said:
What do you fear a Corbyn government might have done that this Boris government has not done? Would Corbyn have sought to place himself above the law (see this thread)?moonshine said:Without the FTPA, the May govt may well have collapsed in early 2019 and we’d be 18 months into a Corbyn government. So we can thank it for preventing that at least. Otherwise a terrible piece of legislation, with the unconstructive political gridlock of last year self evidently not in the public interest.
Don’t care what chicanery is used to repeal, just do it.
The irony is not lost on me.
'History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities. Think now
She gives when our attention is distracted
And what she gives, gives with such supple confusions
That the giving famishes the craving. Gives too late
What’s not believed in, or is still believed,
In memory only, reconsidered passion. Gives too soon
Into weak hands, what’s thought can be dispensed with
Till the refusal propagates a fear. Think
Neither fear nor courage saves us. Unnatural vices
Are fathered by our heroism. Virtues
Are forced upon us by our impudent crimes.'
1 -
Just in case for future reference, dont listen to dream me or real me.noneoftheabove said:
Ashamed to admit I had my first pb dream this week. A regular informed and accurate poster declared that restrictions would be lasting another 5 years - I was very concerned until I woke up.Casino_Royale said:I had a dream I got paid by Betfair last night.
Just a dream.0 -
Its Brexit combined with Trumpism. Brexit with an internationally outward looking US co-operating with the EU would be far less damaging globally. Brexit may also have helped Trumps election in the first place, given the fine margins in US presidential elections.Fenman said:
I feel you are really overestimating our importance in the grand scheme of things. Brexit simply makes Britain less relevant to everyone.noneoftheabove said:
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678820 -
If only some if them could have been deferred...Scott_xP said:2 -
Agree , from not relevant to totally irrelevantFenman said:
I feel you are really overestimating our importance in the grand scheme of things. Brexit simply makes Britain less relevant to everyone.noneoftheabove said:
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-551678822 -
Fair point, in the last few years the UK’s deranged attitude to its monarchy (which IMO includes legal fictions) has almost certainly gone down in the top 20 reasons to think it’s bananas. However on the dangerous assumption that some sort of normality will return, I’m sure it’ll be back stronger than ever.kle4 said:
I think legal principles, even ones people dislike, are unlikely to be a reason people consider a nation that way. I doubt theres a person on this planet who genuinely thinks legal fictions around monarchical power make a county bananas. Suggesting people have alternative nationality or ethnicity to the reality doesn't help the case either.malcolmg said:
Make you vomit, the clowns think some doddery old German bird has absolute power and we are supposed to be in the 21st Century. Explains why the UK is down the toilet and has reached banana republic territory.LostPassword said:
Yes, so the underlying assumption is that the Monarch has absolute power, except where constrained by Parliament, so if the constraint is removed the power is restored.IshmaelZ said:I would have thought that just a clean repeal, without more, would put us back exactly where we were, with the prerogatives intact. Not saying that is politically possible, but it is surely what the legal position would be.
0 -
Under our constitution Westminster via Crown in Parliament is sovereign so this statute is simply asserting that right in terms of the dissolution of Parliament to enable an election and restoring the power to call elections to the executive and the courts under our constitution must remain the servants of Parliament and not the other way around0
-
I hope you are right, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go.kle4 said:
All nations deal or dealt arrogantly with nations less powerful than them. China certainly has in the past and does now, and nurses grievances from that time as a strategy, but do we think theyd be less inclined to throw their weight around if we'd been nicer back then? No, that just gives them flimsy pretext, but it's as much a joke as when we talk about the Treaty of Troyes as a reason to treat the French bad, only they pretend it's not a joke. China will do what it will do, but I highly doubt 19th C actions play any genuine part of their calculations.OldKingCole said:
I suspect dealing with China is going to be a problem for Britain. This country has not, historically, had a good relationship with China, and indeed in the mid and late the 19thC threw it's weight about when dealing with what it apparently arrogantly perceived to be a failing and inferior state. Now that state, rejuvenated, is neither weak nor failing and I fear that the saying about revenge applies.noneoftheabove said:
China was previously constrained by a Western alliance across the US-EU, it might not have felt that way at the time, but they would have gone faster and further without said alliance. With Trumpism and Brexit weakening that alliance heavily China will be far more aggressive internationally and abide by its own values not Western norms. It may well be the biggest cost of Brexit.FF43 said:
China is an interesting diplomatic challenge for the UK. Brexit allows the UK to do something different with China from the EU. It's about the only area where a buccaneering Britain could get a significant advantage. So far the UK has become more, not less, hostile to China for some good reasons. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.noneoftheabove said:What happens to small to medium sized countries trading with much bigger ones:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55167882
So yes itll be a problem for us, but not really for that reason. Really we've had little historical relations with them at all compared to their neighbours.0 -
Of course, if a Corbyn government was repealing the FTPA, the Tory media would be screaming about prioritising obscure constitutional matters in the first year of a Parliament, when hundreds are dying from COVID daily.2
