@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
It mentions that the extent or scope of the powers are not justiciable. It’s not clear to me how the act itself can be subject to judicial review when the extent or scope of the powers cannot.
Because Acts cannot be judicially reviewed, but the use of powers can. That’s just the orthodox position. If you suddenly start stating that certain Acts themselves cannot be challenged, the question is, what about Acts that don’t state that?
This is all academic but it shows how law is not simple. I blame the creeping americanisms that Leon and others seem to be engulfed by - i.e. a panic about the courts overriding Parliament which just doesn’t really happen. Even the Miller cases during Brexit were about the power of Parliament over the Government, not the power of the courts over Parliament.
But in this case the act says the powers themselves (their extent, limit) are not justiciable, not only their usage.
The distinction is not relevant to the point I am making. You are just restating the orthodox position.
It is relevant. You are saying a clause in an act that says an act is not justiciable would invite judges to start looking at reviewing other laws, due to an implied right to review other primary legislation. I’m saying there is already an act on the statute books with a clause to that effect.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
It mentions that the extent or scope of the powers are not justiciable. It’s not clear to me how the act itself can be subject to judicial review when the extent or scope of the powers cannot.
Because Acts cannot be judicially reviewed, but the use of powers can. That’s just the orthodox position. If you suddenly start stating that certain Acts themselves cannot be challenged, the question is, what about Acts that don’t state that?
This is all academic but it shows how law is not simple. I blame the creeping americanisms that Leon and others seem to be engulfed by - i.e. a panic about the courts overriding Parliament which just doesn’t really happen. Even the Miller cases during Brexit were about the power of Parliament over the Government, not the power of the courts over Parliament.
But in this case the act says the powers themselves (their extent, limit) are not justiciable, not only their usage.
The distinction is not relevant to the point I am making. You are just restating the orthodox position.
It is relevant. You are saying a clause in an act that says an act is not justiciable would invite judges to start looking at reviewing other laws, due to an implied right to review other primary legislation. I’m saying there is already an act on the statute books with a clause to that effect.
But you are wrong. It isn’t the same.
And besides I didn’t say that it would do anything - I merely questioned it.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
That is precisely why the policy includes withdrawal of indefinite leave to remain from those who already have it.
Sky thoughtfully have some numbers.
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates - not challenged this morning by the government when I checked - that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028.
I've seen 213,666 quoted on Wiki for those who already have ILR status.
As Sky says "big numbers" and those involved will be concerned (and rightly so). The questions I have include ones like - if someone with an ILR status has married soneone else with ILR status and they have a child born here, what is or would be the child's status?
To be fair to Farage, he is not suggesting everyone with an ILR status would be deported if they had to renew that status but what are we expecting - 10% deportation, 50% deportation rate?
As with all big numbers, the question is how big it is compared with other relevant big numbers- in this case, the 70 million or so population of the UK?
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Net immigration is massively down from that 2023/4 peak, and declining further. Will the public notice?
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
Since your Enabling Act will get rid of the laws allowing you to claim your beautifully refurbished Camden flat belongs to you, I will now claim it and will DM the address to which you can send me the keys.
Too many of you are coveting my Georgian glassware. I am now going to amend my Supreme law with the "leave Leon's flat alone" clause, subsection 2
The point is made. It is indeed possible to write a law that overrides all prior law, and STFU to all the lawyers. Every court would have to obey Leon's Supreme Law Act of 2025. What we actually do with this law will be up to me, as Lord Caudillo of the Dwarf Ale Glasses. I'll decide later
MY RESPONSE
So you do want the benefit of law after all.
Sorry no - you have to remove all laws, even those that benefit you.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast.... and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Why have laws when you can have one law?
Why have one law when you can have ONE KINGDOM, ONE PEOPLE, ONE LEON
"If Reform appear to be a party full of Tory retreads or Tory backed then I suspect they will lose support from previously Labour aligned voters."
Possibly, but Reform Party is basically Farage Party. Without Farage Reform are nothing but while Farage leads them, similar to Boris in 2019, he can reach into some of those former Labour industrial working class communities.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
Since your Enabling Act will get rid of the laws allowing you to claim your beautifully refurbished Camden flat belongs to you, I will now claim it and will DM the address to which you can send me the keys.
Too many of you are coveting my Georgian glassware. I am now going to amend my Supreme law with the "leave Leon's flat alone" clause, subsection 2
The point is made. It is indeed possible to write a law that overrides all prior law, and STFU to all the lawyers. Every court would have to obey Leon's Supreme Law Act of 2025. What we actually do with this law will be up to me, as Lord Caudillo of the Dwarf Ale Glasses. I'll decide later
MY RESPONSE
So you do want the benefit of law after all.
Sorry no - you have to remove all laws, even those that benefit you.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast.... and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
+++++
A quote from a man who famously tortured Protestants to death. With glee. In his own home. Especially handsome youths. He was Fred West with better Latin
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Labour are briefing out that they are going to push through an extension to reach ILR to 10 years and apply it to people already in the pipeline. Let's see if it's true. If it is then ultimately this stops being an issue anyway as all of the boriswave will have their ILR dates after the next election at which point visas can be ended and not renewed, terms on unskilled visas can be amended so that they don't accrue residency rights and existing skilled worker visa holders can be pushed into the higher income brackets.
None of those measures are deportation, it's more like becoming more selective over who is allowed to stay in the country and taken together they could have the effect of up to 2m people returning to their home countries after not being eligible for a new visa.
It still feels like this isn't the main problem - the problem is boat people getting arriving, getting into the asylum queue for years, too many asylum claims being granted, and not being able to remove tbose who have failed.
The asylum backlog is decreasing (down 18% as of June), while deportations and voluntary removals are up. Would you like to give the government any credit for that? Arrivals, however, haven't shifted yet. The grant rate goes up and down a lot as the make-up of arrivals changes.
If I were reform I'd start parliament off with a colossal repeal bill. Modern slavery, net zero, online safety act, human rights act (1998), nutrient neutrality. Leave the 51 refugee convention, leave the echr. Abolish natural England. Look at every single successful judicial review relating to (stopping) planning of stuff like Heathrow, HS2 (Whether it's worth the money is a separate argument), every human rights argument that's stopped a deportation, caused the Bibby Stockholm to get shut down or bleatings regarding setting up camps, Rwanda scheme and repeal all those laws too.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
The following clause abolishes the Supreme Court. The clause after THAT entails severe penalties - ten years in prison - for anyone legally contesting Leon's Supreme Law. The coppers will come and arrest you and take you to the Tower
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Net immigration is massively down from that 2023/4 peak, and declining further. Will the public notice?
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Net immigration is massively down from that 2023/4 peak, and declining further. Will the public notice?
Given the polling most of the public think there’s more illegal than legal migration and Reform have already moved the goalposts anyway . Realising that net migration will fall significantly in the November update they’ve now decided that we have to have zero net migration . Of course if they came to power it’s likely we’d see that turn negative as people get deported, don’t want to come to such a hostile country and Brits that can, flee from what will be turning into a xenophobic dump with a lot of angry Reform voters wondering why their lives are still crap .
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
That is precisely why the policy includes withdrawal of indefinite leave to remain from those who already have it.
Sky thoughtfully have some numbers.
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates - not challenged this morning by the government when I checked - that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028.
I've seen 213,666 quoted on Wiki for those who already have ILR status.
As Sky says "big numbers" and those involved will be concerned (and rightly so). The questions I have include ones like - if someone with an ILR status has married soneone else with ILR status and they have a child born here, what is or would be the child's status?
To be fair to Farage, he is not suggesting everyone with an ILR status would be deported if they had to renew that status but what are we expecting - 10% deportation, 50% deportation rate?
The number who become eligible is not the same as the number who apply, presumably.
UK citizenship law does not grant citizenship just for being born in the UK (unlike US law), but if you are born in the UK and at least one parent has ILR, then you get British citizenship. So, in your scenario, the child would have British citizenship.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
That is precisely why the policy includes withdrawal of indefinite leave to remain from those who already have it.
Sky thoughtfully have some numbers.
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates - not challenged this morning by the government when I checked - that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028.
I've seen 213,666 quoted on Wiki for those who already have ILR status.
As Sky says "big numbers" and those involved will be concerned (and rightly so). The questions I have include ones like - if someone with an ILR status has married soneone else with ILR status and they have a child born here, what is or would be the child's status?
To be fair to Farage, he is not suggesting everyone with an ILR status would be deported if they had to renew that status but what are we expecting - 10% deportation, 50% deportation rate?
Eligible to Apply is -of course- mildly different from approved. I am eligible to apply to change to an immigrant visa in the US from my current non-immigrant one. It is far from certain, however, this will be approved.
Does that mean the merger has now been approved, so they are free to say "Fuck you, Donny" to Mr Trump?, and change their mind just as if it were a Trade Tariff?
Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show will resume airing on Tuesday, says Disney
The show was suspended after comments Kimmel made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk
"It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive," Disney says in its statement
"We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday," the statement adds
Earlier on Monday, hundreds of celebrities including Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep, and Robert DeNiro signed a letter backing Kimmel https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c7vln6qv12et
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
The following clause abolishes the Supreme Court. The clause after THAT entails severe penalties - ten years in prison - for anyone legally contesting Leon's Supreme Law. The coppers will come and arrest you and take you to the Tower
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
Of course you can do all this if you abolish the separation of powers. But the rules of this fanciful game don't allow it. It's like the offside rule. UK is not USA.
Anyway, if the SC is abolished then the Court of Appeal becomes our highest (English) court and similar in the other nations. It simply takes on the function of being the ultimate court with the same inherent powers in England that the SC had formerly.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
The supreme court of the land is the Commons. It's been this way since the reinstatement of Charles II as monarch and was reaffirmed by Miller II. Not the monarch, which the SCOTUK recognised as a legal fiction in Miller II, not the government, not even the Supreme court itself. A very different situation to the USA where their written constitution reigns supreme; and Marbury created from whole cloth the power to be able to judicially review said constitution effectively making their Supreme Court the most powerful branch of gov't.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
Paracetamol is my only pain relief medication as others have been ruled out due to my medical issues
The good thing is I did not take them during my wife's 3 pregnancies !!!!!!!
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
The following clause abolishes the Supreme Court. The clause after THAT entails severe penalties - ten years in prison - for anyone legally contesting Leon's Supreme Law. The coppers will come and arrest you and take you to the Tower
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
Of course you can do all this if you abolish the separation of powers. But the rules of this fanciful game don't allow it. It's like the offside rule. UK is not USA.
Anyway, if the SC is abolished then the Court of Appeal becomes our highest (English) court and similar in the other nations. It simply takes on the function of being the ultimate court with the same inherent powers in England that the SC had formerly.
The judiciary's job in the UK is to interpret the laws parliament writes. So it's clearly below parliament in the hierarchy.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Why have laws when you can have one law?
Why have one law when you can have ONE KINGDOM, ONE PEOPLE, ONE LEON
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
Good to know I should avoid taking paracetamol if I don't want to become like Rain Man..😏 But he was pretty useful in the casino..🤔🤑
Don't worry, it's only Acetaminophen they're talking about. Paracetamol is fine.
What I don’t understand is that we have huge patient records (millions of patient years etc) and this hasn’t shown up. Autism is tricky. No blood test, or X-ray to diagnose. And now a seeming cachet it being diagnosed late in life as a way to explain your social nature. I am sceptical.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
The following clause abolishes the Supreme Court. The clause after THAT entails severe penalties - ten years in prison - for anyone legally contesting Leon's Supreme Law. The coppers will come and arrest you and take you to the Tower
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
Of course you can do all this if you abolish the separation of powers. But the rules of this fanciful game don't allow it. It's like the offside rule. UK is not USA.
Anyway, if the SC is abolished then the Court of Appeal becomes our highest (English) court and similar in the other nations. It simply takes on the function of being the ultimate court with the same inherent powers in England that the SC had formerly.
The judiciary's job in the UK is to interpret the laws parliament writes. So it's clearly below parliament in the hierarchy.
Indeed. And new laws already automatically supersede old laws, per lex posterior derogat priori. You don't need to add anything special to a new law for this to happen.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
That is precisely why the policy includes withdrawal of indefinite leave to remain from those who already have it.
Sky thoughtfully have some numbers.
According to the government, last year 172,800 got Indefinite Leave to Remain. From next year there are estimates - not challenged this morning by the government when I checked - that about 270,000 migrants will become eligible to apply to live in the UK permanently. Then, up to 416,000 people will qualify in 2027, and 628,000 in 2028.
I've seen 213,666 quoted on Wiki for those who already have ILR status.
As Sky says "big numbers" and those involved will be concerned (and rightly so). The questions I have include ones like - if someone with an ILR status has married soneone else with ILR status and they have a child born here, what is or would be the child's status?
To be fair to Farage, he is not suggesting everyone with an ILR status would be deported if they had to renew that status but what are we expecting - 10% deportation, 50% deportation rate?
Now pregnant women are going to be guilt tripped into suffering more pain . Not content with stopping abortion rights the WH is now trying to ensure women can suffer even more . I hope all those who supported the administration and the cesspit cabinet rot in hell .
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
The following clause abolishes the Supreme Court. The clause after THAT entails severe penalties - ten years in prison - for anyone legally contesting Leon's Supreme Law. The coppers will come and arrest you and take you to the Tower
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
Of course you can do all this if you abolish the separation of powers. But the rules of this fanciful game don't allow it. It's like the offside rule. UK is not USA.
Anyway, if the SC is abolished then the Court of Appeal becomes our highest (English) court and similar in the other nations. It simply takes on the function of being the ultimate court with the same inherent powers in England that the SC had formerly.
Jesus F C you are insufferably stupid in an "educated" way
In the end Parliament is supreme. It can enact any law it likes, and it can enforce this in a way - as I have shown - that cancels all contrary prior law. It doesn't matter which is the supreme court at the time, Parliament is ultimately supreme
We've had this discussion before and you were equally mule-headed then. I suspect it is because you simply don't like, emotionally, what I am saying. But emotions don't count
The endpoint of this is the same as we reached before. It comes down to brute physical force. In the UK the army and police have a monopoly on violence and force. Will they obey a bunch of stubborn lawyers, or will they enact the law as passed by parliament and signed by the King? I am pretty sure they would obey parliament and the King (tho I accept there is an interesting sub-argument as to whether King Chas would sign this kind of Supreme Act- my guess is he would)
At that point any lawyer contesting the Supreme Law Act goes to jail for a long time. They wouldn't risk it. Endex
Families accuse care home of 'neglect' and 'cruelty' after secret filming
"As a BBC Disclosure reporter, I worked undercover as a cleaner in Castlehill Care Home in Inverness for seven weeks over the summer.
In that time, I saw vulnerable elderly people left sitting alone for hours in urine-soaked clothes or lying in wet bedsheets, often calling out for help.
I also saw a female resident screaming in distress over male carers doing intimate personal care, due to chronic staff shortages."
Sadly, stories like this are all too common.
Don't get old.
I can't help it !!!!!
I am 64 later this week. I feel a slightly whimsical Beatles song coming on.
When I get older Losing my Brains Either This Week or Next Will you still be sending me the odd email Occasional message or just a text?
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Why have laws when you can have one law?
Why have one law when you can have ONE KINGDOM, ONE PEOPLE, ONE LEON
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
It's a short bill - so top marks for brevity. I'm not quite sure it covers some of the finer details. But still. Well done for trying.
How about this (I just found it on Reddit, so people have discussed this already):
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. Supremacy of this Act
This Act shall have effect notwithstanding:
(a) any provision of any prior Act of Parliament;
(b) any provision of subordinate legislation (however described);
(c) any rule of common law or equity;
(d) any constitutional instrument or convention;
(e) any retained EU law, international treaty, or other obligation recognised in domestic law.
To the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, this Act shall prevail and have full force of law.
2. Binding on all persons and authorities
This Act binds
(a) the Crown;
(b) Parliament;
(c) the devolved legislatures and administrations;
(d) the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom;
(e) all public authorities and persons within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
3. Non-derogation
No court or tribunal shall have power to decline to give effect to this Act on the grounds of incompatibility with
(a) any constitutional principle;
(b) any prior enactment or rule of law; or
(c) any international obligation.
The validity of this Act shall not be questioned in any court of law.
4. Amendment or repeal
This Act may only be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament which expressly states
(a) that it is amending or repealing this Act; and
(b) the precise provisions to be amended or repealed.
No implied repeal, modification, or derogation shall apply to this Act.
5. Short title and commencement
This Act may be cited as the Supreme Law Act 2025.
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed."
There. Done. Do it
All the juicy laws putting miscreant lawyers in jail can come later. Perhaps two days later
Three points:
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
The following clause abolishes the Supreme Court. The clause after THAT entails severe penalties - ten years in prison - for anyone legally contesting Leon's Supreme Law. The coppers will come and arrest you and take you to the Tower
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
Of course you can do all this if you abolish the separation of powers. But the rules of this fanciful game don't allow it. It's like the offside rule. UK is not USA.
Anyway, if the SC is abolished then the Court of Appeal becomes our highest (English) court and similar in the other nations. It simply takes on the function of being the ultimate court with the same inherent powers in England that the SC had formerly.
Jesus F C you are insufferably stupid in an "educated" way
In the end Parliament is supreme. It can enact any law it likes, and it can enforce this in a way - as I have shown - that cancels all contrary prior law. It doesn't matter which is the supreme court at the time, Parliament is ultimately supreme
We've had this discussion before and you were equally mule-headed then. I suspect it is because you simply don't like, emotionally, what I am saying. But emotions don't count
The endpoint of this is the same as we reached before. It comes down to brute physical force. In the UK the army and police have a monopoly on violence and force. Will they obey a bunch of stubborn lawyers, or will they enact the law as passed by parliament and signed by the King? I am pretty sure they would obey parliament and the King (tho I accept there is an interesting sub-argument as to whether King Chas would sign this kind of Supreme Act- my guess is he would)
At that point any lawyer contesting the Supreme Law Act goes to jail for a long time. They wouldn't risk it. Endex
The only person talking emotional nonsense this evening is you. It's entertaining for a while. But only for a while.
Still, at least we now know that paracetamol is rock solid safe.
I took the maximum dose every day for 4 years after a car crash in North Carolina, and look at me now. Perfectly normal. Just posting to a political betting discussion forum late into the evening, like all normal people do.
Get rid of Natural England, get rid of the retained EU law. Say goodbye and please don't stay in touch to their Stalinist stranglehold on British life.
Getting rid of retained EU law is a good example of why parties who promise the moon on a stick, often fail.
T. May when faced with the problem of how to separate EU and UK law decided there wasn't the bandwidth within government to separate the two (very different) legal systems so rolled EU law over into UK law. The idea was to unpick it over a period of time when it could be done at leisure. It hasn't.
In looking at the present government, they promised 'mission-led' government. The five missions, each with associated end goals, are:
Kick-start economic growth
Make Britain a clean energy superpower
Take back our streets
Break down barriers to opportunity
Build an NHS fit for the future.
Already these missions are in serious trouble as life comes at you fast. So the missions are looking questionable.
The same would apply to any future government as besides their manifesto commitments, they also are bound by the promises of previous governments as enshrined in the legislation passed. So part of time, if not most, will be trying to undo the spaghetti that is UK law with all the interrelatedness with treaties and international relations. Those with little self-control can't wait for the changes and complain when change is not instantaneous viz Brexit.
It will take many parliaments to make meaningful changes in UK law including the drag that inherited EU law on our institutions. All we can do is sit and wait for the changes we want to appear, hopefully in your lifetime. If it seems like Groundhog day, it probably is.
Rubbish. A parliament cannot bind its successor.
This comment misses the point. Parliament is sovereign and can legislate freely. However any government as it starts a ministry has a country to run. The gigantic legal infrastructure under which it is run - from law relating to murder to planning applications for Heathrow Airport - is already in place as they begin, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted organic development from parliament and courts since the reign of Henry II (r 1154-1189). Government is absolutely bound by it, unless and until it legislates to change it. Lots of changes are always urgent, as there is so much of it to sort. Political opportunism requires still further worthless bits of law making. Parliamentary time is finite, and MPs are mostly quite dim about the law. Vast amounts of legislation exists mostly to give lawyers opportunities to challenge, quite properly, any government decision. It will be fascinating to see what happens when a Reform government discovers that all this is quite hard, unless of course you abolish the separation of powers, the rule of law, and govern by dictat, as is happening across the pond.
Write a law that overrides all preceding law. Abolish any courts that try to stop this
Clever fellows the parliamentary draftsmen and women. Their predecessors wrote the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act of the same year to give but two examples of their art in its pomp. Some of it is pure poetry.
However, I think the chaps charged with drafting the transitional provisions and related schedules of 'A Law That Overrides All Preceding Laws' may have met their Waterloo. Reform must have some tame lawyers among their number. I shall look forward to their efforts.
Yes, whatever, who cares
"Oh we will stop you with our clever old laws"
Write a law saying This is the supreme law. Get it signed by the king. The state has a monopoly on force, use it - if legally necessary - on anyone that objects, especially lawyers
Go on, give us a draft of the act. I'll give you a hand by starting it for you:
Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:.........—
... all preceding laws contrary to the laws hereby enacted are null and void. Anyone who attempts to contest them, legally, shall go to prison for 30 years minimum
I would also fiercely prosecute, under the new laws, lots of the lawyers, judges and NGOs who have done such damage to the country. Sling them in a new maxi prison, a la Bukele. I imagine a lot of objections will quickly fade away
Still, at least we now know that paracetamol is rock solid safe.
I took the maximum dose every day for 4 years after a car crash in North Carolina, and look at me now. Perfectly normal. Just posting to a political betting discussion forum late into the evening, like all normal people do.
It’s ironic that the right wing press went after Gina Miller and disgracefully smeared the judges when the court case was a win for all of us , democracy and accountability.
Without the Article 50 case and subsequent win for Gina Miller the government could remove the rights of citizens with the stroke of a pen and no vote in Parliament.
The coverage by especially the Daily Mail was an absolute disgrace , the media overall were fxcking useless in explaining how important it was for Gina Miller to win the case .
Indeed the right wing would have celebrated a loss and continued to dupe the public even as their rights could then be flushed away .
Q: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a statement saying 'acetaminophen remains a safe option for pain relief during pregnancy.' That's at odds with you
TRUMP: That's the establishment. They're funded by lots of different groups. And you know what? Maybe they're right.
Now pregnant women are going to be guilt tripped into suffering more pain . Not content with stopping abortion rights the WH is now trying to ensure women can suffer even more . I hope all those who supported the administration and the cesspit cabinet rot in hell .
Wait until RFK finds out how many people who regularly drink water die.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Blondie fan?
Who is Blondie?
@AnneJGP , Blondie was a Noo-Yawk four-men-one-woman band in the late 70's/early 80's, best known for its beautiful female singer Debbie Harry. It sits in the awkward post-punk pre-Eighties period described at the time as new-wave (basically they had attitude but could write songs, sing them and play instruments). Had a decent set of hits, then split up. The reference to "Rapture" is because it was one of their songs. Americans insist it was the first rap song: it wasn't. One of their claims to fame is they did the theme tune to "American Gigolo", setting the template for the "Eighties men in good suits in trouble looking moody in neon" subgenre in the 80's.
Pretending Joe Biden was okay as a candidate has resulted in this.
"Trump links paracetamol use with autism" "Trump: Avoid hepatitis vaccine until children are 12" "Spread childhood vaccines over five years, says Trump"
Sounds as though Newsom's social media team are on whatever Leon is tonight.
DOZY DON CANNOT KEEP HIS EYES OPEN LONG ENOUGH TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO “STOP THE SHUTDOWN.” MANY ARE NOW SAYING HE CANNOT KEEP TRACK OF THE DAY OR TIME, KEEPS SAYING HE MADE “CALLS” “YESTERDAY” (HE DID NOT!) AND RELIES ON HIS AUTO-SHARPIE AND MILLER TO MAKE ALL DECISIONS. HE IS NOW WHISPERING TO HIS PEN (DEMENTIA???) ASKING FOR HELP, BUT HE KNOWS ONLY I, AMERICA’S FAVORITE GOVERNOR, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, CAN ANSWER THE CALL AND SAVE AMERICA. I KNOW THE “ART OF THE DEAL” AND CAN STEP IN TO SAVE THE COUNTRY ONCE AGAIN. I WILL BE ABLE TO TALK TO THE “OTHER SIDE” OF THE “AISLE” AND CREATE THE GREATEST DEAL OF ALL TIME. WE WILL ALL BE RICHER THAN ANYONE THOUGHT POSSIBLE AND AMERICA WILL BE “HOT” ONCE AGAIN. YOU ARE WELCOME, DON!! WE WILL SAVE HEALTH CARE FOR MILLIONS AND MAKE THE “EGGS” CHEAPER. MIKE “LITLLE MAN” JOHNSON MUST LEAVE HIS VERY VIOLENT DISTRICT AND COME BACK TO DC AS I HAVE JUST COMMANDED. EVERYONE WILL FLOOD THE STREETS TO CHEER “DADDY! DADDY! DADDY!” BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE OPEN, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, YOUR DADDY, WILL FINALLY BE HOME, AND DC WILL BE BEAUTIFUL AGAIN BECAUSE OF IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!! — GCN https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1970175563387281475
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Why have laws when you can have one law?
Why have one law when you can have ONE KINGDOM, ONE PEOPLE, ONE LEON
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Why have laws when you can have one law?
Why have one law when you can have ONE KINGDOM, ONE PEOPLE, ONE LEON
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Blondie fan?
Who is Blondie?
@AnneJGP , Blondie was a Noo-Yawk four-men-one-woman band in the late 70's/early 80's, best known for its beautiful female singer Debbie Harry. It sits in the awkward post-punk pre-Eighties period described at the time as new-wave (basically they had attitude but could write songs, sing them and play instruments). Had a decent set of hits, then split up. The reference to "Rapture" is because it was one of their songs. Americans insist it was the first rap song: it wasn't. One of their claims to fame is they did the theme tune to "American Gigolo", setting the template for the "Eighties men in good suits in trouble looking moody in neon" subgenre in the 80's.
Blondie actually predated Punk. They were formed in 1974. They supported Bowie in the States as early as 77. They only became famous internationally later. ISTR they made it back in Oz first, curiously. They are pretty much the archetypal New Wave band. If you doubt their NY Dolls proto punk credentials check out She's So Dull (Rip Her to Shreds).
PS. They reformed a few years back. Maria was a decent single redolent of the sound of their glory years.
I see a couple of the usual suspects are claiming in the general responses to Farage's latest immigration proposals we are somehow out of step with "the general public".
Perhaps but Farage cannot and must not be exempt from the same scrutiny as other politicians when they put forward ideas and if there are questions or areas needing clarity, that needs to be expressed and Farage needs to provide the answers.
PB isn't meant to be a barometer of public opinion - it never has been.
I agree with this. However, there was also a singular lack of analysis as to what the policy actually was - only partly due to the sensationalist terms used by the Telegraph piece.
Indeed and some of the numbers used by Farage have turned out to be less than reliable and indeed been disowned by the Centre for Policy Studies.
The other problem is those who came in 2022 and 2023 could well have applied for ILR and been granted it under the five year rule before the next GE. As @HYUFD has pointed out, Sunak reduced the numbers who came under the original Boris Johnson relaxation of immigration regulations post-Brexit so the Farage policy may have the effect of nailing shut the stable door with the horse already over the horizon.
Net immigration is massively down from that 2023/4 peak, and declining further. Will the public notice?
Given the polling most of the public think there’s more illegal than legal migration and Reform have already moved the goalposts anyway . Realising that net migration will fall significantly in the November update they’ve now decided that we have to have zero net migration . Of course if they came to power it’s likely we’d see that turn negative as people get deported, don’t want to come to such a hostile country and Brits that can, flee from what will be turning into a xenophobic dump with a lot of angry Reform voters wondering why their lives are still crap .
I must admit I'm getting quite worried about what happens if Reform are close to winning in 3 years' time. I will resign from my job and campaign flat out against them if necessary, but I will have no desire to stay if they win. The only problem I can see is that it's not obvious where I could go (Ireland?) thanks to Brexit and I won't be wealthy enough to buy my way in anywhere. Perhaps I will have to claim political asylum!
Pretending Joe Biden was okay as a candidate has resulted in this.
"Trump links paracetamol use with autism" "Trump: Avoid hepatitis vaccine until children are 12" "Spread childhood vaccines over five years, says Trump"
Q: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a statement saying 'acetaminophen remains a safe option for pain relief during pregnancy.' That's at odds with you
TRUMP: That's the establishment. They're funded by lots of different groups. And you know what? Maybe they're right.
He really is one of the dumbest and most malign people to ever live. 4 years of stuff like this and the US will never recover.
This is real. This is also, surely, the future of warfare
The endless videos of kicking and beating down robots are all going into the training data for the next-gen. It's all fine. We are the cleverest of clever moneys.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Blondie fan?
Who is Blondie?
@AnneJGP , Blondie was a Noo-Yawk four-men-one-woman band in the late 70's/early 80's, best known for its beautiful female singer Debbie Harry. It sits in the awkward post-punk pre-Eighties period described at the time as new-wave (basically they had attitude but could write songs, sing them and play instruments). Had a decent set of hits, then split up. The reference to "Rapture" is because it was one of their songs. Americans insist it was the first rap song: it wasn't. One of their claims to fame is they did the theme tune to "American Gigolo", setting the template for the "Eighties men in good suits in trouble looking moody in neon" subgenre in the 80's.
Blondie actually predated Punk. They were formed in 1974. They supported Bowie in the States as early as 77. They only became famous internationally later. ISTR they made it back in Oz first, curiously. They are pretty much the archetypal New Wave band. If you doubt their NY Dolls proto punk credentials check out She's So Dull (Rip Her to Shreds).
PS. They reformed a few years back. Maria was a decent single redolent of the sound of their glory years.
I was aware of their New York Dolls and CBGB background and their legitimate proto-punk status, but I felt that was too much info. I didn't know about their 1974 history.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Blondie fan?
Who is Blondie?
@AnneJGP , Blondie was a Noo-Yawk four-men-one-woman band in the late 70's/early 80's, best known for its beautiful female singer Debbie Harry. It sits in the awkward post-punk pre-Eighties period described at the time as new-wave (basically they had attitude but could write songs, sing them and play instruments). Had a decent set of hits, then split up. The reference to "Rapture" is because it was one of their songs. Americans insist it was the first rap song: it wasn't. One of their claims to fame is they did the theme tune to "American Gigolo", setting the template for the "Eighties men in good suits in trouble looking moody in neon" subgenre in the 80's.
Blondie actually predated Punk. They were formed in 1974. They supported Bowie in the States as early as 77. They only became famous internationally later. ISTR they made it back in Oz first, curiously. They are pretty much the archetypal New Wave band. If you doubt their NY Dolls proto punk credentials check out She's So Dull (Rip Her to Shreds).
PS. They reformed a few years back. Maria was a decent single redolent of the sound of their glory years.
I admit I mostly remember Debbie Harry for her part in Videodrome - which has been on my mind of late along with A Clockwork Orange.
Now pregnant women are going to be guilt tripped into suffering more pain . Not content with stopping abortion rights the WH is now trying to ensure women can suffer even more . I hope all those who supported the administration and the cesspit cabinet rot in hell .
Wait until RFK finds out how many people who regularly drink water die.
They put dihydrogen monoxide everywhere these days, it doesnt just come out of your taps but even from the sky too. Shocking.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Blondie fan?
Who is Blondie?
@AnneJGP , Blondie was a Noo-Yawk four-men-one-woman band in the late 70's/early 80's, best known for its beautiful female singer Debbie Harry. It sits in the awkward post-punk pre-Eighties period described at the time as new-wave (basically they had attitude but could write songs, sing them and play instruments). Had a decent set of hits, then split up. The reference to "Rapture" is because it was one of their songs. Americans insist it was the first rap song: it wasn't. One of their claims to fame is they did the theme tune to "American Gigolo", setting the template for the "Eighties men in good suits in trouble looking moody in neon" subgenre in the 80's.
Blondie actually predated Punk. They were formed in 1974. They supported Bowie in the States as early as 77. They only became famous internationally later. ISTR they made it back in Oz first, curiously. They are pretty much the archetypal New Wave band. If you doubt their NY Dolls proto punk credentials check out She's So Dull (Rip Her to Shreds).
PS. They reformed a few years back. Maria was a decent single redolent of the sound of their glory years.
I was aware of their New York Dolls and CBGB background and their legitimate proto-punk status, but I felt that was too much info. I didn't know about their 1974 history.
Parallel Lines was massive at my 1978 high school. As was the number of Debbie Harry posters.
Trump: Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born Hepatitis B. So I would say wait until the baby is 12 years old and formed and take Hepatitis B. https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1970235486120645101
Now pregnant women are going to be guilt tripped into suffering more pain . Not content with stopping abortion rights the WH is now trying to ensure women can suffer even more . I hope all those who supported the administration and the cesspit cabinet rot in hell .
Wait until RFK finds out how many people who regularly drink water die.
They put dihydrogen monoxide everywhere these days, it doesnt just come out of your taps but even from the sky too. Shocking.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Name one?
I think he was being a bit cheeky with that comment!
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
Name one?
I think he was joking.
We remember the libertarian rights unfortunate flirtation with Somalia though.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
That's not *quite* true; it found a very minor correlation that is not statistically significant, and may simply be chance. The children of mothers who took acetimponephien were about 0.2 percentage points more likely to be autistic than those who didn't (albeit once you controlled for siblings, even that minor correlation largely disappeared.)
It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
That's not *quite* true; it found a very minor correlation that is not statistically significant, and may simply be chance. The children of mothers who took acetimponephien were about 0.2 percentage points more likely to be autistic than those who didn't (albeit once you controlled for siblings, even that minor correlation largely disappeared.)
It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.
Of course, it's also entirely possible that illness/pain is correlated with autism, and people who are sick/in pain are more likely to take paracetamol.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but apparently it's the Rapture tomorrow. Coincidentally, my parents are in Utah on holiday. I'll tell them to look out for it
Friend of mine has asserted confidently that the Rapture was about to happen, twice in the past two years.
Blondie fan?
Who is Blondie?
@AnneJGP , Blondie was a Noo-Yawk four-men-one-woman band in the late 70's/early 80's, best known for its beautiful female singer Debbie Harry. It sits in the awkward post-punk pre-Eighties period described at the time as new-wave (basically they had attitude but could write songs, sing them and play instruments). Had a decent set of hits, then split up. The reference to "Rapture" is because it was one of their songs. Americans insist it was the first rap song: it wasn't. One of their claims to fame is they did the theme tune to "American Gigolo", setting the template for the "Eighties men in good suits in trouble looking moody in neon" subgenre in the 80's.
Blondie actually predated Punk. They were formed in 1974. They supported Bowie in the States as early as 77. They only became famous internationally later. ISTR they made it back in Oz first, curiously. They are pretty much the archetypal New Wave band. If you doubt their NY Dolls proto punk credentials check out She's So Dull (Rip Her to Shreds).
PS. They reformed a few years back. Maria was a decent single redolent of the sound of their glory years.
I admit I mostly remember Debbie Harry for her part in Videodrome - which has been on my mind of late along with A Clockwork Orange.
Thanks for reminding me to watch Videodrome again. Seen it once about 10 years ago.
@Leon you could argue that if you expressly exclude courts from being able to challenge the validity of that specific law, that they can challenge the validity of other laws. Courts cannot challenge the validity of Acts. It’s Blair levels of messing with our constitution which apparently is the root of all our problems.
A similar clause is used in the act repealing the fixed term parliaments act, to restore the royal prerogative.
And?
It’s not novel, so there is already the implied power you speak of.
I have just looked and it doesn’t contain a similar clause. It just prevents the courts from judicially reviewing the use of the powers, which is not the same.
But you miss the point. Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and yes it can pass a single law overriding all prior laws, removing any contestation. You just need the King to sign it
That is both the genius and the horror of the UK system. We have an elected dictatorship, as has often been said. Given the way the nation has been abused by the lawyers and politicians for decades, it is time for the next government to be a tad more dictatorial. Put the lawyers back in their box, and if they object too strenuously, throw them into maxi prisons, upon conviction
Then get on with restoring our prosperity and thereby preserving the UK
Famously, countries without laws are the most prosperous and secure ones.
So I got my Labour deputy leadership ballot, have I got these basic facts right to be an informed voter:
- Both kind of normal, competent politicians - No particular substantial ideological disagreements that I can discern - Phillipson follows 16 people on bsky, Powell only follows 10. Both still have a .bsky.social username and neither is running their own PDS. - Phillipson seems weird on rights for trans people although it's an argument I avoid soaking my brain too deep in. (Sorry if I started something by posting this.) - In The Discourse, Powell seems to be an avatar for the leadership ambitions of someone who isn't particularly good and also isn't eligible to be leader, and I have a strong aversion to ineffectual plotting that undermines the leader without actually replacing them. But I'm not clear how much of this is actually connected to Powell and how much is made up, presumably once she's elected she'll make a speech about how Kier Starmer is fabulous. - I haven't found any information about how many houses they each own.
So I got my Labour deputy leadership ballot, have I got these basic facts right to be an informed voter:
- Both kind of normal, competent politicians - No particular substantial ideological disagreements that I can discern - Phillipson follows 16 people on bsky, Powell only follows 10. Both still have a .bsky.social username and neither is running their own PDS. - Phillipson seems weird on rights for trans people although it's an argument I avoid soaking my brain too deep in. (Sorry if I started something by posting this.) - In The Discourse, Powell seems to be an avatar for the leadership ambitions of someone who isn't particularly good and also isn't eligible to be leader, and I have a strong aversion to ineffectual plotting that undermines the leader without actually replacing them. But I'm not clear how much of this is actually connected to Powell and how much is made up, presumably once she's elected she'll make a speech about how Kier Starmer is fabulous. - I haven't found any information about how many houses they each own.
Anything important I'm missing?
Phillipson has a tail. Powell is actually 73 years old but has lots of moisturiser. Philipson alters the spelling of her surname at random to catch out journalists. Powell is the head of "The Lucy Club", a secret organisation of people called "Lucy" who solve crimes[1]: coming soon to ITV2. Philllipssson can impersonate a snake. Powell is an Olympic-class fencer and can paint a fifteen-foot fence in 87 seconds, two coats and primer.
[1] IT'S MY IDEA. I HAD IT FIRST. LEON DON'T STEAL IT.
So I got my Labour deputy leadership ballot, have I got these basic facts right to be an informed voter:
- Both kind of normal, competent politicians - No particular substantial ideological disagreements that I can discern - Phillipson follows 16 people on bsky, Powell only follows 10. Both still have a .bsky.social username and neither is running their own PDS. - Phillipson seems weird on rights for trans people although it's an argument I avoid soaking my brain too deep in. (Sorry if I started something by posting this.) - In The Discourse, Powell seems to be an avatar for the leadership ambitions of someone who isn't particularly good and also isn't eligible to be leader, and I have a strong aversion to ineffectual plotting that undermines the leader without actually replacing them. But I'm not clear how much of this is actually connected to Powell and how much is made up, presumably once she's elected she'll make a speech about how Kier Starmer is fabulous. - I haven't found any information about how many houses they each own.
Anything important I'm missing?
"- Both kind of normal, incompetent politicians"
Fixed for you. Lucy Powell in particular is famous for failing upwards. Failed at every job she has been given. Only a few weeks ago she blew her own feet off accusing people of people racist dog whistles. Starmer did sack her in the most recent reshuffle from the easiest job going when you have a big majority.
Sinclair, which owns or controls 39 ABC affiliate stations, said it will not air Jimmy Kimmel's show after Disney announced on Monday that it would return Tuesday night.
I'm sure you would all like to attend this meeting. Unless you have something more interesting to do, like removing your liver through your arse.
Yarvin: I think we should just give up on democracy and worship the rich Campbell: BOMB IRAQ Yarvin: Democracy is retro. We must kneel to the strong man Campbell: 45 MINUTES. 45 MINUTES Yarvin: Worship his essence. And rub the lotion in its skin... Campbel (interrupting): KNEEL BEFORE BLAIR! Yarvin: Kneel indeed.
(bows to audience, each picks up cheque for £50,000, walks off-stage)
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
That's not *quite* true; it found a very minor correlation that is not statistically significant, and may simply be chance. The children of mothers who took acetimponephien were about 0.2 percentage points more likely to be autistic than those who didn't (albeit once you controlled for siblings, even that minor correlation largely disappeared.)
It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.
Of course, it's also entirely possible that illness/pain is correlated with autism, and people who are sick/in pain are more likely to take paracetamol.
Or - and I feel we may not be considering this option - Trump may be stupid and make science stuff up.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
That's not *quite* true; it found a very minor correlation that is not statistically significant, and may simply be chance. The children of mothers who took acetimponephien were about 0.2 percentage points more likely to be autistic than those who didn't (albeit once you controlled for siblings, even that minor correlation largely disappeared.)
It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.
Hang on, should the Labour deputy leadership ballot really be coming from a website called anonyvoter.com or am I being phished? Wiki says ballots don't open until October 8th.
Christ, the Mail have got the paracetemol/autism thing on their front page. I'm sure their article will get round to the medical evidence but the "just asking questions" thing is just so hideously irresponsible.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
That's not *quite* true; it found a very minor correlation that is not statistically significant, and may simply be chance. The children of mothers who took acetimponephien were about 0.2 percentage points more likely to be autistic than those who didn't (albeit once you controlled for siblings, even that minor correlation largely disappeared.)
It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.
Of course, it's also entirely possible that illness/pain is correlated with autism, and people who are sick/in pain are more likely to take paracetamol.
A (possibly the) major cause of the big rise in autism diagnosis is quite likely to be, simply the big rise in doctors diagnosing autism.
Only a few decades back you had usually to be severely autistic to be diagnosed at all. There was no "on the spectrum" in popular culture.
Comments
And besides I didn’t say that it would do anything - I merely questioned it.
Too many of you are coveting my Georgian glassware. I am now going to amend my Supreme law with the "leave Leon's flat alone" clause, subsection 2
The point is made. It is indeed possible to write a law that overrides all prior law, and STFU to all the lawyers. Every court would have to obey Leon's Supreme Law Act of 2025. What we actually do with this law will be up to me, as Lord Caudillo of the Dwarf Ale Glasses. I'll decide later
MY RESPONSE
So you do want the benefit of law after all.
Sorry no - you have to remove all laws, even those that benefit you.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast.... and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Possibly, but Reform Party is basically Farage Party. Without Farage Reform are nothing but while Farage leads them, similar to Boris in 2019, he can reach into some of those former Labour industrial working class communities.
Starts in Scandinavia cos they're Blondies.
1) It doesn't purport to oust the jurisdiction of the court, while purporting to direct that jurisdiction, so there is plenty of wriggle room
2) It attempts to bind its successors in 4(b) in that it indicates that a later 'Notwithstanding' Act could have no effect on it. This fails.
3) The Supreme Court has an inherent power, if necessary by overruling its own previous decisions, to decide whether it has jurisdiction over the 'validity' of an act of parliament, notwithstanding an act's assertion that it doesn't. Indeed the act's purported ousting of this jurisdiction could be taken as parliamentary authority for suggesting that the court does has such a jurisdiction. (Section 3)
Lawyers are still in business.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sarah+cooper+impersonates+trump+inecting+with+bleech#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0ae50e10,vid:RxDKW75ueIU,st:0
The point is made. It is indeed possible to write a law that overrides all prior law, and STFU to all the lawyers. Every court would have to obey Leon's Supreme Law Act of 2025. What we actually do with this law will be up to me, as Lord Caudillo of the Dwarf Ale Glasses. I'll decide later
MY RESPONSE
So you do want the benefit of law after all.
Sorry no - you have to remove all laws, even those that benefit you.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast.... and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
+++++
A quote from a man who famously tortured Protestants to death. With glee. In his own home. Especially handsome youths. He was Fred West with better Latin
This is why we need a Reformation
Also: sort out your fecking block-quoting
Modern slavery, net zero, online safety act, human rights act (1998), nutrient neutrality.
Leave the 51 refugee convention, leave the echr.
Abolish natural England.
Look at every single successful judicial review relating to (stopping) planning of stuff like Heathrow, HS2 (Whether it's worth the money is a separate argument), every human rights argument that's stopped a deportation, caused the Bibby Stockholm to get shut down or bleatings regarding setting up camps, Rwanda scheme and repeal all those laws too.
Next
Just accept it, dummy. Parliament is supreme and can override any lawyer, as is only right
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz69nppezlzo
Notably and unusually, neither Fox News or Newsmax is carrying Trump's autism press conference live
UK citizenship law does not grant citizenship just for being born in the UK (unlike US law), but if you are born in the UK and at least one parent has ILR, then you get British citizenship. So, in your scenario, the child would have British citizenship.
Does that mean the merger has now been approved, so they are free to say "Fuck you, Donny" to Mr Trump?, and change their mind just as if it were a Trade Tariff?
Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show will resume airing on Tuesday, says Disney
The show was suspended after comments Kimmel made about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk
"It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive," Disney says in its statement
"We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday," the statement adds
Earlier on Monday, hundreds of celebrities including Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep, and Robert DeNiro signed a letter backing Kimmel
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c7vln6qv12et
Anyway, if the SC is abolished then the Court of Appeal becomes our highest (English) court and similar in the other nations. It simply takes on the function of being the ultimate court with the same inherent powers in England that the SC had formerly.
Expect a big increase in stomach ulcers as people switch to ibuprofen.
Not the monarch, which the SCOTUK recognised as a legal fiction in Miller II, not the government, not even the Supreme court itself.
A very different situation to the USA where their written constitution reigns supreme; and Marbury created from whole cloth the power to be able to judicially review said constitution effectively making their Supreme Court the most powerful branch of gov't.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817406
Keep taking the pills.
The good thing is I did not take them during my wife's 3 pregnancies !!!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/11/reform-uk-doctor-aseem-malhotra-vaccine-claims-gmc?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
(There are few things that the Mail hates more than being described as a tabloid.)
That would explain much but I'm not convinced.
Autism is tricky. No blood test, or X-ray to diagnose. And now a seeming cachet it being diagnosed late in life as a way to explain your social nature. I am sceptical.
In the end Parliament is supreme. It can enact any law it likes, and it can enforce this in a way - as I have shown - that cancels all contrary prior law. It doesn't matter which is the supreme court at the time, Parliament is ultimately supreme
We've had this discussion before and you were equally mule-headed then. I suspect it is because you simply don't like, emotionally, what I am saying. But emotions don't count
The endpoint of this is the same as we reached before. It comes down to brute physical force. In the UK the army and police have a monopoly on violence and force. Will they obey a bunch of stubborn lawyers, or will they enact the law as passed by parliament and signed by the King? I am pretty sure they would obey parliament and the King (tho I accept there is an interesting sub-argument as to whether King Chas would sign this kind of Supreme Act- my guess is he would)
At that point any lawyer contesting the Supreme Law Act goes to jail for a long time. They wouldn't risk it. Endex
Losing my Brains
Either This Week or Next
Will you still be sending me the odd email
Occasional message or just a text?
When's your next foreign trip?
Though I can see why you might not.
Without the Article 50 case and subsequent win for Gina Miller the government could remove the rights of citizens with the stroke of a pen and no vote in Parliament.
The coverage by especially the Daily Mail was an absolute disgrace , the media overall were fxcking useless in explaining how important it was for Gina Miller to win the case .
Indeed the right wing would have celebrated a loss and continued to dupe the public even as their rights could then be flushed away .
Q: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a statement saying 'acetaminophen remains a safe option for pain relief during pregnancy.' That's at odds with you
TRUMP: That's the establishment. They're funded by lots of different groups. And you know what? Maybe they're right.
If @MoonRabbit is online, she may want to see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCrMlAwQSOE
"Trump links paracetamol use with autism"
"Trump: Avoid hepatitis vaccine until children are 12"
"Spread childhood vaccines over five years, says Trump"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/09/22/trump-autism-announcement-watch-live/
DOZY DON CANNOT KEEP HIS EYES OPEN LONG ENOUGH TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO “STOP THE SHUTDOWN.” MANY ARE NOW SAYING HE CANNOT KEEP TRACK OF THE DAY OR TIME, KEEPS SAYING HE MADE “CALLS” “YESTERDAY” (HE DID NOT!) AND RELIES ON HIS AUTO-SHARPIE AND MILLER TO MAKE ALL DECISIONS. HE IS NOW WHISPERING TO HIS PEN (DEMENTIA???) ASKING FOR HELP, BUT HE KNOWS ONLY I, AMERICA’S FAVORITE GOVERNOR, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, CAN ANSWER THE CALL AND SAVE AMERICA. I KNOW THE “ART OF THE DEAL” AND CAN STEP IN TO SAVE THE COUNTRY ONCE AGAIN. I WILL BE ABLE TO TALK TO THE “OTHER SIDE” OF THE “AISLE” AND CREATE THE GREATEST DEAL OF ALL TIME. WE WILL ALL BE RICHER THAN ANYONE THOUGHT POSSIBLE AND AMERICA WILL BE “HOT” ONCE AGAIN. YOU ARE WELCOME, DON!! WE WILL SAVE HEALTH CARE FOR MILLIONS AND MAKE THE “EGGS” CHEAPER. MIKE “LITLLE MAN” JOHNSON MUST LEAVE HIS VERY VIOLENT DISTRICT AND COME BACK TO DC AS I HAVE JUST COMMANDED. EVERYONE WILL FLOOD THE STREETS TO CHEER “DADDY! DADDY! DADDY!” BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE OPEN, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, YOUR DADDY, WILL FINALLY BE HOME, AND DC WILL BE BEAUTIFUL AGAIN BECAUSE OF IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!! — GCN
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1970175563387281475
They only became famous internationally later. ISTR they made it back in Oz first, curiously.
They are pretty much the archetypal New Wave band.
If you doubt their NY Dolls proto punk credentials check out She's So Dull (Rip Her to Shreds).
PS. They reformed a few years back.
Maria was a decent single redolent of the sound of their glory years.
https://x.com/unitreerobotics/status/1970039940022239491?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
This is real. This is also, surely, the future of warfare
That's what comes of assuming Trump was the superior candidate.
Stop excusing him and his voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwELr8ir9qM
1964: ARTHUR C CLARKE predicts the FUTURE | Horizon | Past Predictions | BBC Archive
Trump: Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted. There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born Hepatitis B. So I would say wait until the baby is 12 years old and formed and take Hepatitis B.
https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1970235486120645101
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-army-tests-robot-dogs-armed-with-ai-enabled-guns-at-military-facility-in-middle-east-report-6716933
The key is to keep control of them
It *might* be the case that there's a tiny increased risk of autism from taking paracetamol, but it certainly doesn't *cause* autism.
- Some people say Somalia was an example of an anarcho-capitalist state. It was certainly ungoverned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991–2006)
- You could make an argument for unrecognized states like Western Sahara being unlawed.
- States that are abandoned by colonial powers often rapidly rebuild a lawed state to their own liking (Ireland? Afghanistan?)
The point is that unlawed countries just don't work.- Both kind of normal, competent politicians
- No particular substantial ideological disagreements that I can discern
- Phillipson follows 16 people on bsky, Powell only follows 10. Both still have a .bsky.social username and neither is running their own PDS.
- Phillipson seems weird on rights for trans people although it's an argument I avoid soaking my brain too deep in. (Sorry if I started something by posting this.)
- In The Discourse, Powell seems to be an avatar for the leadership ambitions of someone who isn't particularly good and also isn't eligible to be leader, and I have a strong aversion to ineffectual plotting that undermines the leader without actually replacing them. But I'm not clear how much of this is actually connected to Powell and how much is made up, presumably once she's elected she'll make a speech about how Kier Starmer is fabulous.
- I haven't found any information about how many houses they each own.
Anything important I'm missing?
[1] IT'S MY IDEA. I HAD IT FIRST. LEON DON'T STEAL IT.
Fixed for you. Lucy Powell in particular is famous for failing upwards. Failed at every job she has been given. Only a few weeks ago she blew her own feet off accusing people of people racist dog whistles. Starmer did sack her in the most recent reshuffle from the easiest job going when you have a big majority.
Labour minister urged to quit over ‘dog whistle’ remark on grooming gangs
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lucy-powell-dog-whistle-grooming-gangs-b2744592.html
Phillipson is much more the class warriror.
That sounds like them alternative facts.
Campbell: BOMB IRAQ
Yarvin: Democracy is retro. We must kneel to the strong man
Campbell: 45 MINUTES. 45 MINUTES
Yarvin: Worship his essence. And rub the lotion in its skin...
Campbel (interrupting): KNEEL BEFORE BLAIR!
Yarvin: Kneel indeed.
(bows to audience, each picks up cheque for £50,000, walks off-stage)
If 0.2 percentage points isn't large enough to require a change in management, it isn't important.
Only a few decades back you had usually to be severely autistic to be diagnosed at all. There was no "on the spectrum" in popular culture.
(Or rather, I remember the quote, but only had a hazy idea of who Kirk was at the time, so hadn't linked it to him.)