|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 10:58:27 GMT
The current, and previous, Monarch have never withheld Royal Assent (though Her Maj allegedly came close with withholding Royal Assent from the Brexit legislation). But it HAS been withheld, and there was NOTHING that could be done about it. The same is true now the Monarch could withhold Royal Assent and there is NOTHING (except some ephemeral "constitutional crisis" that you can't describe and offer no solution to - so it may as well be a fairy-tale) that could be done about it What you are saying is that "it is OK to give a paedophile the right to have sex with a six year old with no legal consequences as long as he doesn't actually do it". That is a stupid argument. You look at the Legal Position, and ask - "In a worse case scenario is that legal position justifiable?". In the case of the Monarch, and the paedophile, it is clearly NOT justifiable. All The Best Last withheld by Queen Anne over 300 years ago Queen lizzie withheld assent when labours then sos for scotland wullie Hamilton tried to force the dissolution of fife county council in 1973 under the reorganisation of local government in scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 11:14:05 GMT
So the Irish border that couldn't be a border during Brexit talks is now a border . Garda spokesman today "A task force has been set up to monitor and detect illegal immigration into Ireland " In reply to the question about immigration checks on the border the Garda said "Checks were carried out on a regular basis dependant on circumstances " So now we have clarified its a border can Northern Ireland return to being part of the United Kingdom ?
Taoiseach Simon Harris has reiterated his Government’s position that gardaí will not be sent to the Northern Ireland border amid an ongoing diplomatic row which saw UK prime minister Rishi Sunak seeking “urgent clarification” on the matter.
Diplomatic tensions between London and Dublin have increased in recent days after Minister for Helen McEntee claimed there had been an upsurge in asylum seekers crossing the border following the passing of the UK’s Safety of Rwanda Act.
On Tuesday, the Government said 100 gardaí would be made available for frontline immigration enforcement duties, although ministers insisted they would not be “assigned to physically police the border with Northern Ireland”.
On Wednesday, Mr Sunak urged the Irish Government not to send gardaí into border areas following a dispute about asylum seekers crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic.
www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/irish-premier-says-of-course-police-will-not-be-sent-to-ni-border-1620474.html
Haven't seen much about this in recent days dog burger , but last I heard no Irish polis were going to be sent to the border with the 6 counties. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 6, 2024 11:44:09 GMT
Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK. They include: The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. The Human Rights Act 1998. The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973 - and subsequent exit in 2020. The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal. These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 11:49:31 GMT
"In 1689, the Earl of Shaftsbury said that the English parliament was sovereign. But the English Parliament doesn't exist anymore. The English Parliament disappeared in 1707, as did the Scottish Parliament. [In] the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there is no law at all that says that that is sovereign.
"And the reason why that's important is because in Scotland, there's no concept at all of parliamentary sovereignty. The Declaration of Arbroath, which you'll all be familiar with, of course, says that sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people.
"That's still the case today in Scots' Constitutional Law. Still the case.
"And the Scottish courts have expressed an opinion in that regard, particularly in cases in the Fifties to the Seventies. What does that mean in practice? It means that if this clause becomes law, Scotland will have imposed on it a form of sovereignty that, firstly doesn't exist in Scotland, and secondly, cuts across the Treaty of Union in 1707. And the Scottish courts have said that is something that they are willing to look at, in terms of its justiciability.
"Doesn't affect us in Wales, I grant you, because our court system was abolished gradually between 1536 and 1830. But this actually is a fundamental attack on the 1707 Treaty of Union in Scotland.
"I'll leave it to the Scots to fight their own battle, but it's something that just hasn't been noticed. Parliamentary sovereignty has never been part of the law of the United Kingdom with regard to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, apart from now." Carwyn Jones
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 11:57:45 GMT
carwyn jones seems to disagree. He says that parliamentary sovereignty is a modern fantasy invention of a victorian guy called Albert dicey in the 19th century and that no such law exists in reality. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/01/18/carwyn-jones-is-dicey-dicey/ sounds like the usual Westminster made up on the hoof smoke and mirrors that is now gleefully parroted as truth embedded in stone down through the ages , when it isnt anything of the sort. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 6, 2024 12:10:17 GMT
We didn't have sovereignty until 2020, because that's what we voted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 12:28:15 GMT
We didn't have sovereignty until 2020, because that's what we voted for. I didnt. Dont know about you. So if starmer wins the next uk GE as seems likely , and gives this mythical sovereignty way to say Brussels for example , then are you saying that's what people voted for too? MMMMMmmmmm. I think a few of your fellows might be a tad upset Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2024 13:30:03 GMT
Last withheld by Queen Anne over 300 years ago Queen lizzie withheld assent when labours then sos for scotland wullie Hamilton tried to force the dissolution of fife county council in 1973 under the reorganisation of local government in scotland. Slightly different scenario, assent was withheld because one assumes her legal advisers told her that it would be illegal to do so. No Constituional Crisis ensued as we can assume that Westminster assumed they were on a loser. That is a different case in which Proveritas places much of his opinion in that if the Monarch so chooses they can withhold assent on a whim. The point about democracy is that it is predicated on the rule of law and in the UKs case historical precedent as regards the Constitution. The Monarch also has to act within the law notwithstanding the fact he is the head of judiciary. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 13:32:10 GMT
But, crucially, can CHOOSE not to - and there is NOTHING Parliament could do about it. All The Best In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Well, here's the kicker. That is seemingly so difficult to grasp that I am just about the only person here who has done so. We can't be both a Constitutional Monarchy and a Constitutional Democracy can we? They are mutually exclusive! So I was correct: we are NOT a Democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2024 13:32:42 GMT
carwyn jones seems to disagree. He says that parliamentary sovereignty is a modern fantasy invention of a victorian guy called Albert dicey in the 19th century and that no such law exists in reality. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/01/18/carwyn-jones-is-dicey-dicey/ sounds like the usual Westminster made up on the hoof smoke and mirrors that is now gleefully parroted as truth embedded in stone down through the ages , when it isnt anything of the sort. It is the people that are sovereign, Westminster is where that sovereignty is exercised with all its flaws and inconsistencies. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2024 13:34:05 GMT
In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Well, here's the kicker. That is seemingly so difficult to grasp that I am just about the only person here who has done so. We can't be both a Constitutional Monarchy and a Constitutional Democracy can we? They are mutually exclusive! So I was correct: we are NOT a Democracy. All The Best We can be anything we want as long as it in general terms works. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 13:35:21 GMT
Well, here's the kicker. That is seemingly so difficult to grasp that I am just about the only person here who has done so. We can't be both a Constitutional Monarchy and a Constitutional Democracy can we? They are mutually exclusive! So I was correct: we are NOT a Democracy. All The Best We can be anything we want as long as it in general terms works. So a Man can be a Woman? If the specifics of a term don't matter then that's fine... ...right? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 6, 2024 13:36:11 GMT
In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. Well, here's the kicker. That is seemingly so difficult to grasp that I am just about the only person here who has done so. We can't be both a Constitutional Monarchy and a Constitutional Democracy can we? They are mutually exclusive! So I was correct: we are NOT a Democracy. All The Best Just a word of advice, stop making yourself look sillier and sillier.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom. In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
You are getting mixed up with a 'absolute monarchy'
Only a few countries today still have an absolute monarchy as their ruling form of government. These are Brunei, Eswatini, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the individual emirates that comprise the United Arab Emirates. While many countries still retain a kind or queen, they no longer practice absolute monarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 13:39:19 GMT
Queen lizzie withheld assent when labours then sos for scotland wullie Hamilton tried to force the dissolution of fife county council in 1973 under the reorganisation of local government in scotland. Slightly different scenario You claimed assent was last withheld three hunner years ago , and im simply pointing out that's demonstrably untrue. You can withdraw into trying to baffle with your usual bullshit all you like , but the fact remains assent was last withheld 50 years ago under lizzie not three hunner. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 6, 2024 13:41:07 GMT
carwyn jones seems to disagree. He says that parliamentary sovereignty is a modern fantasy invention of a victorian guy called Albert dicey in the 19th century and that no such law exists in reality. ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/01/18/carwyn-jones-is-dicey-dicey/ sounds like the usual Westminster made up on the hoof smoke and mirrors that is now gleefully parroted as truth embedded in stone down through the ages , when it isnt anything of the sort. It is the people that are sovereign, Westminster is where that sovereignty is exercised with all its flaws and inconsistencies. where are you disagreeing with what im saying in the post you quoted? Or are you filling the space yet again with meaningless gobbledygook.? Re read my post , and let me know what you disagree with regarding what labours carwyn jones says on the matter of mythical uk sovereignty. |
|
