"Pray the future will never need..." : comments [Dreams on the Bitface]

As far as I can tell, the rules covering which way that clause would be interpreted are clear and simple if you understand them. I don't, but as I understand it it's not likely to be legally ambiguous.

As for the second point, it could be argued (although remember that IANAL) that under 3 (2) (d) it would be prohibited as removing necessary protection, and under 3 (2) (e) as removing the right of legislators to determine the powers of ministers. In any case, such a move would be liable (under the law as it stood at the point of passage) to be rejected by Parliamentary motion.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

Fair points all, and you have obviously considered this with a clearer head than I. Do you think I should modify (or take down) my "Revolution!" post, then?

What do you think about the fact that on its face, no existing Act is beyond the reach of the new bill? Some commentators are saying that "constitutional" laws like the Bill of Rights and of course the Human Rights Act should be explicitly named on this bill as being outwith its influence.

This is all, of course, part of the problem with not having a written constitution.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I don't like the bill, and in particular the fact that its scope is so wide is very unwise. Listing bills as constitutional might work, but arguably they've already tried with the bar on removing "essential safeguards". That dumps it into the judiciary's hands, and while it's a damn sight better than nothing, I don't see it as an adequate substitute for just not passing the thing.

Written constitution. Yes. Seems like a very good idea, overall.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1 1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Dreams on the Bitface

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

September