|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 15, 2024 17:42:51 GMT
The Law is NOT consensual. If you are speeding you don't have to consent to being ticketed - it just happens. In fact not only do you not need to consent to be subject to the law, you don't even need to be aware of the law (ignorance of the law is no defence) to be subject to it; and you clearly can not consent to something you are not aware of. All The Best Of course the law is consensual as it is the result of the democratic process. I may not like all the laws but I recognise that they are derived through the democratic process with all its flaws and inconsistencies. Of course you can consent to that which you are not aware of if you consent to the process that puts it there. I may consent to the purchase of a gift for an ill colleague. I may not be aware of what it is or where it resides but I consented to the process. If I break the law do I have to consent to being arrested? If I break the law do I have to consent to being charged? If I break the law do I have to consent to give the court authority over me? If I break the law and am convicted do I have to consent to go to prison? Think you'll find the answer to ALL of those is No. At the wider level. Does every Law in Great Britain have the consent of the majority of the British people? In fact some Laws still in effect, especially those relating to the Monarchy, are legacy laws from prior to the creation of British Democracy. The oldest Law still on the books is the Statute of Marlborough, from 1267 - pretty damn sure there is no Democratic Consensus on that The notion that the Law is consensual is utterly ridiculous. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 15, 2024 18:04:19 GMT
Of course the law is consensual as it is the result of the democratic process. I may not like all the laws but I recognise that they are derived through the democratic process with all its flaws and inconsistencies. Of course you can consent to that which you are not aware of if you consent to the process that puts it there. I may consent to the purchase of a gift for an ill colleague. I may not be aware of what it is or where it resides but I consented to the process. If I break the law do I have to consent to being arrested? If I break the law do I have to consent to being charged? If I break the law do I have to consent to give the court authority over me? If I break the law and am convicted do I have to consent to go to prison? Think you'll find the answer to ALL of those is No. At the wider level. Does every Law in Great Britain have the consent of the majority of the British people? In fact some Laws still in effect, especially those relating to the Monarchy, are legacy laws from prior to the creation of British Democracy. The oldest Law still on the books is the Statute of Marlborough, from 1267 - pretty damn sure there is no Democratic Consensus on that The notion that the Law is consensual is utterly ridiculous. All The Best All the laws are with the consent of the people through the democratic process and using the institutions that are part of that process. Any law existing prior to this time is still in existence with the consent of the people in the same way. Law must be consensual as it is made by Parliament etc or not removed by parliament. If it was not overly consensual and was not approved through the democratic process then it would result in some form of insurrection. Individaully most people object to specific laws to greater or lesser degrees that does not remove the consensual nature of all law which operates on societal level. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 15, 2024 22:41:49 GMT
If I break the law do I have to consent to being arrested? If I break the law do I have to consent to being charged? If I break the law do I have to consent to give the court authority over me? If I break the law and am convicted do I have to consent to go to prison? Think you'll find the answer to ALL of those is No. At the wider level. Does every Law in Great Britain have the consent of the majority of the British people? In fact some Laws still in effect, especially those relating to the Monarchy, are legacy laws from prior to the creation of British Democracy. The oldest Law still on the books is the Statute of Marlborough, from 1267 - pretty damn sure there is no Democratic Consensus on that The notion that the Law is consensual is utterly ridiculous. All The Best All the laws are with the consent of the people through the democratic process and using the institutions that are part of that process. Any law existing prior to this time is still in existence with the consent of the people in the same way. Law must be consensual as it is made by Parliament etc or not removed by parliament. If it was not overly consensual and was not approved through the democratic process then it would result in some form of insurrection. Individaully most people object to specific laws to greater or lesser degrees that does not remove the consensual nature of all law which operates on societal level. Consent can NOT be implied. Any Law that did not a) appear explicitly in a Manifesto Pledge, or b) has not been put the popular vote has no Consent. And we'll not have insurrection, we are a disarmed populace, policed and controlled by Forces the swear allegiance to the Monarch. The mental gymnastic you and other like you engage in rather than admit the plain, simple, and legal truth, that we are not, and have never been, a Democracy. Grow some balls, stop hiding from the truth; then if you don't like that truth do something about it. There's the crux isn't it; admitting we are not a Democracy would require action from those who knowingly and falsely claim we are. And the vast majority would rather willingly engage in cognitive dissonance than actually have to do something. It used to be said that this nation was comprised of Lions led by Lambs, now were are just liars who lie to ourselves led by complacency. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 16, 2024 15:15:14 GMT
All the laws are with the consent of the people through the democratic process and using the institutions that are part of that process. Any law existing prior to this time is still in existence with the consent of the people in the same way. Law must be consensual as it is made by Parliament etc or not removed by parliament. If it was not overly consensual and was not approved through the democratic process then it would result in some form of insurrection. Individaully most people object to specific laws to greater or lesser degrees that does not remove the consensual nature of all law which operates on societal level. Consent can NOT be implied. Any Law that did not a) appear explicitly in a Manifesto Pledge, or b) has not been put the popular vote has no Consent. And we'll not have insurrection, we are a disarmed populace, policed and controlled by Forces the swear allegiance to the Monarch. The mental gymnastic you and other like you engage in rather than admit the plain, simple, and legal truth, that we are not, and have never been, a Democracy. Grow some balls, stop hiding from the truth; then if you don't like that truth do something about it. There's the crux isn't it; admitting we are not a Democracy would require action from those who knowingly and falsely claim we are. And the vast majority would rather willingly engage in cognitive dissonance than actually have to do something. It used to be said that this nation was comprised of Lions led by Lambs, now were are just liars who lie to ourselves led by complacency. All The Best Consent was never implied it was implicit in the act of making law and accepting law and voting. Any new member of the EU accepts, as the UK did, all the existing laws, regulations and treaties on becoming a member, that was presented as a consensual agreement from a body that regards itself as democratic. Why am I hiding from the truth I accept that Royal Assent can be withheld but I also accept that if it was there would be consequences which is part of how our democracy works and progresses. Sovereignty is an actuality not a legal entity. The Monarch may try to exercise his 'sovereignty' and express his legal right to so do however do you believe that people would sit back and accept that? If you wish to stick to the legal word as being the final word then you are out of touch with history where legality was rarely the final arbiter when push came to shove. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 16, 2024 15:42:23 GMT
Consent can NOT be implied. Any Law that did not a) appear explicitly in a Manifesto Pledge, or b) has not been put the popular vote has no Consent. And we'll not have insurrection, we are a disarmed populace, policed and controlled by Forces the swear allegiance to the Monarch. The mental gymnastic you and other like you engage in rather than admit the plain, simple, and legal truth, that we are not, and have never been, a Democracy. Grow some balls, stop hiding from the truth; then if you don't like that truth do something about it. There's the crux isn't it; admitting we are not a Democracy would require action from those who knowingly and falsely claim we are. And the vast majority would rather willingly engage in cognitive dissonance than actually have to do something. It used to be said that this nation was comprised of Lions led by Lambs, now were are just liars who lie to ourselves led by complacency. All The Best Consent was never implied it was implicit in the act of making law and accepting law and voting. Only if those laws were explicitly voted on. While I broadly agree with most of the Laws of the UK I am under no illusion at all that I was ever given the right, or means, to grant or withhold consent for those Laws. Perhaps you could name just one Law that the population of Great Britain was given such a choice over? While we at one time voted to Join the EU (well, we weren't, we voted on joining the EEC, which morphed into the EU) I am willing to bet that at the time not even 1% of the population had the means available to them to have seen every single Law. So there was, at best, implied consent - nothing more. Funny enough, when we were finally given a choice on the EU (after it had morphed hydra-like from a Trading Bloc to a Federalist Political Union) we rejected it. So the only time we were actually given a choice to consent to the EU we chose not to. However, none of this diversionary waffle comes close to addressing the fact that a significant proportion of our laws stem from legislation that existed prior to Great Britain becoming a Democracy; an to which, therefore, the People have NEVER been given an opportunity to grant or withhold consent. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 16, 2024 16:20:06 GMT
Consent was never implied it was implicit in the act of making law and accepting law and voting. Only if those laws were explicitly voted on. While I broadly agree with most of the Laws of the UK I am under no illusion at all that I was ever given the right, or means, to grant or withhold consent for those Laws. Perhaps you could name just one Law that the population of Great Britain was given such a choice over? While we at one time voted to Join the EU (well, we weren't, we voted on joining the EEC, which morphed into the EU) I am willing to bet that at the time not even 1% of the population had the means available to them to have seen every single Law. So there was, at best, implied consent - nothing more. Funny enough, when we were finally given a choice on the EU (after it had morphed hydra-like from a Trading Bloc to a Federalist Political Union) we rejected it. So the only time we were actually given a choice to consent to the EU we chose not to. However, none of this diversionary waffle comes close to addressing the fact that a significant proportion of our laws stem from legislation that existed prior to Great Britain becoming a Democracy; an to which, therefore, the People have NEVER been given an opportunity to grant or withhold consent. All The Best Participation in the democratic process is a consensual undertaking. I vote to participate in allowing my representative to change laws he thinks need changing or new laws that need making if he so decides that existing law is good then that implicitly means acceptance by all those he represents. This is teh process the EU use for new member states in that a new member accepts all or does not join. As UK citizens we are not held in prison we are free to accept the laws existent or leave. EDIT We accepted EU membership at all times because our representatives accepted that membership. I see you cannot consider what happens after the Monarch says no but this is an important part of the process. Perhasp he does not say no because he knows what will happen that his power will be stripped so it is not a power after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 16, 2024 16:24:13 GMT
There are some laws where consent is logically implied.
Do you give consent for others to murder your friends and family - or anyone? - the answer to that question tells that you consent to a law that proscribes the same for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 16, 2024 16:50:18 GMT
You didn't say exclusively, but you did indicate that he did it. As you only mentioned Hindenburg I pointed out it was not just him, I filled the picture in so what the hell are you whinging about?? To which I clarified that it 'may be logical' for right-wing political individuals to open the path to power for a Fascist. But that is a political decision, bereft of any open logic. Your intervention started "I suggest you look up the history" and you then proceeded to justify the correction by reading in to what I wrote, something that was not actually there. (as you note above) You then make a further three 'corrective' posts, all maintaining that I said something that wasn't actually in the post. Of course, the further assumption is that any of this Hindenburg guffery has any real salience to my point at all - which it doesn't So, here it is again - My point was that, although Hitler didn't have the clear win, there is no logical reason why that couldn't have happened.I pointed out that going on what you actually posted and what that implied that I answered. Its your own fault because of the foggy weakness of your posts. Its almost as if you don't actually know what the actual point is you want to make. Its all part of the smoke and mirrors that takes place between your ears. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 16, 2024 16:55:46 GMT
Your intervention started "I suggest you look up the history" and you then proceeded to justify the correction by reading in to what I wrote, something that was not actually there. (as you note above) You then make a further three 'corrective' posts, all maintaining that I said something that wasn't actually in the post. Of course, the further assumption is that any of this Hindenburg guffery has any real salience to my point at all - which it doesn't So, here it is again - My point was that, although Hitler didn't have the clear win, there is no logical reason why that couldn't have happened.I pointed out that going on what you actually posted and what that implied that I answered. Its your own fault because of the foggy weakness of your posts. Its almost as if you don't actually know what the actual point is you want to make. Its all part of the smoke and mirrors that takes place between your ears. It was reasonably clear that my point wasn't about Hindenburg, but the quandary (partially) caused by Hitler's democratic emergence. If there were any doubt, i clarified this in my next post. However, you are still pointlessly grinding on about it nearly a week later |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 16, 2024 20:47:29 GMT
I see you cannot consider what happens after the Monarch says no but this is an important part of the process. I HAVE considered, numerous times, from the Legal position. The Legal Position is that there is NOTHING at all either Parliament or the People could do to legally challenge or overturn such a decision. We might look at previous times a Monarch has refused Royal Assent, to see what happened then. In doing so we find that not once has the prerogative of Royal Assent been challenged in any way, shape or form, it has not even been formally, or legally restricted. From which we can infer that, if it were to happen again, there would be absolutely no changes at all surrounding Royal Assent. Leaving the Monarch as the only genuinely sovereign entity, and Parliament and the People no closer to democracy than they were before. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture. What, specifically, do you think would happen? All Thew Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 16, 2024 21:16:18 GMT
I see you cannot consider what happens after the Monarch says no but this is an important part of the process. I HAVE considered, numerous times, from the Legal position. The Legal Position is that there is NOTHING at all either Parliament or the People could do to legally challenge or overturn such a decision. We might look at previous times a Monarch has refused Royal Assent, to see what happened then. In doing so we find that not once has the prerogative of Royal Assent been challenged in any way, shape or form, it has not even been formally, or legally restricted. From which we can infer that, if it were to happen again, there would be absolutely no changes at all surrounding Royal Assent. Leaving the Monarch as the only genuinely sovereign entity, and Parliament and the People no closer to democracy than they were before. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture. What, specifically, do you think would happen? All Thew Best Specifically? A change to royal assent. How? By fair means or foul. By whom? Our representatives in the Commons or by a popular vote imposed on the Monarch. The oaths of allegiance would not work as in practise the government deploys the army not the Monarch. The Monarch did not say go to Iraq, it was the government. Because Royal Assent has not been challenged means that it has not been misused by the Monarch for the very simple reason the Monarch knows wherein lies the power of the privileges he enjoys. We are dealing with reality which rarely gives too much attention to legal niceties when push comes to shove. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 16, 2024 21:54:25 GMT
I pointed out that going on what you actually posted and what that implied that I answered. Its your own fault because of the foggy weakness of your posts. Its almost as if you don't actually know what the actual point is you want to make. Its all part of the smoke and mirrors that takes place between your ears. , but the quandary (partially) caused by Hitler's democratic emergence. If there were any doubt, i clarified this in my next post. However, you are still pointlessly grinding on about it nearly a week later I posted: "It was the German aristocracy that gave the final OK for Hitler to take control." You posted: "Hindenburg saw it as a way to provide a sop to revolutionary sentiment". ----- You clarified nothing at any time, you just made a straightforward statement. You then changed your tune when I pointed out that a top Conservative politician cooperated with Hindenburg. It is pretty clear that you make things up as you go along, which is why your posts are so misty, uncertain and unclear. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 16, 2024 22:50:32 GMT
It was reasonably clear that my point wasn't about Hindenburg, but the quandary (partially) caused by Hitler's democratic emergence. If there were any doubt, i clarified this in my next post. However, you are still pointlessly grinding on about it nearly a week later I posted: "It was the German aristocracy that gave the final OK for Hitler to take control." You posted: "Hindenburg saw it as a way to provide a sop to revolutionary sentiment". ----- You clarified nothing at any time, you just made a straightforward statement. You then changed your tune when I pointed out that a top Conservative politician cooperated with Hindenburg. It is pretty clear that you make things up as you go along, which is why your posts are so misty, uncertain and unclear. Hindenburg did see it as a sop to revolutionary sentiment. My comment wasn't meant to clarify or dispute anything - it was an offhand intro to my point - which you ignored. So, I brought up my point again - and you ignored it again and fixated on Hindenburg ...and then you did it again. ..and again A week later you are still trying to wrangle something out of thirteen words that isn't there. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 16, 2024 23:49:31 GMT
I HAVE considered, numerous times, from the Legal position. The Legal Position is that there is NOTHING at all either Parliament or the People could do to legally challenge or overturn such a decision. We might look at previous times a Monarch has refused Royal Assent, to see what happened then. In doing so we find that not once has the prerogative of Royal Assent been challenged in any way, shape or form, it has not even been formally, or legally restricted. From which we can infer that, if it were to happen again, there would be absolutely no changes at all surrounding Royal Assent. Leaving the Monarch as the only genuinely sovereign entity, and Parliament and the People no closer to democracy than they were before. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture. What, specifically, do you think would happen? All Thew Best Specifically? A change to royal assent. How? By fair means or foul. By whom? Our representatives in the Commons or by a popular vote imposed on the Monarch. The oaths of allegiance would not work as in practise the government deploys the army not the Monarch. The Monarch did not say go to Iraq, it was the government. Because Royal Assent has not been challenged means that it has not been misused by the Monarch for the very simple reason the Monarch knows wherein lies the power of the privileges he enjoys. We are dealing with reality which rarely gives too much attention to legal niceties when push comes to shove. Short on specifics. The ONLY legal way to change Royal Assent is for the Monarch to Assent to that change. Neither a vote in the Commons, nor a Popular Vote has the legal power to "impose" anything on the Monarch. The Oaths of Allegiance do very much work. I have known, and worked alongside (in Veteran's charities), close to a hundred Armed Forces personnel and I do not know of a single one who would take up arms against the Monarchy if commanded to do so by Parliament. Because Royal Assent has not been challenged it means it is legally impossible for it to me misused - anything the Monarch wants to do, or not do, with Royal Assent is legal precisely because Royal Assent has NOT been challenged or circumscribed in any way. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on May 17, 2024 8:04:28 GMT
I see you cannot consider what happens after the Monarch says no but this is an important part of the process. I HAVE considered, numerous times, from the Legal position. The Legal Position is that there is NOTHING at all either Parliament or the People could do to legally challenge or overturn such a decision. We might look at previous times a Monarch has refused Royal Assent, to see what happened then. In doing so we find that not once has the prerogative of Royal Assent been challenged in any way, shape or form, it has not even been formally, or legally restricted. From which we can infer that, if it were to happen again, there would be absolutely no changes at all surrounding Royal Assent. Leaving the Monarch as the only genuinely sovereign entity, and Parliament and the People no closer to democracy than they were before. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture. What, specifically, do you think would happen? All Thew Best You may find in elementary explainers statements like the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent or that judges don’t make laws. Indeed, if you build your argument on those statements, your conclusion is inevitable.
In reality, the fact is that judges do make laws and opinion is divided on whether the Prerogative of Royal Assent gives the Monarch a veto. A recent parliamentary research paper ( link ) gave a range of views from constitutional scholars from the Monarch has no discretion to withhold Assent through to it may be possible on ministerial advice.
The paper gives some suggestions on what might happen if the Monarch were to (purport) to refuse Assent. My opinion is, given the Prerogative is a common law power, Parliament would seek the assistance of the courts and it would be held that the Bill in question would be treated in all respects as if Royal Assent had been granted and become law.
As Lord Nicholls said in Spectrum, “ The common law is judge-made law. For centuries judges have been charged with the responsibility of keeping this law abreast of current social conditions and expectations. That is still the position. Continuing but limited development of the common law in this fashion is an integral part of the constitutional function of the judiciary.” As such, what may or may not have happened in 1708 will have little bearing on the current constitutional settlement. |
|
