The Conservative Party

Chris in London said:
If Parliament uses primary legislation to say Margaret Thatcher is still alive, as far as U.K. law is concerned, Margaret Thatcher is still alive.

Primary legislation is not amenable to judicial review no matter how irrational it may be. The sanction for passing batshit legislation is political, not judicial.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thought that could be the case, although the legal challenge to the Covid regs (not primary legislation) made me think it might be possible; however if there is no way of challenging such irrational legislation other than at the ballot box, when we have such a flawed electoral system, then people are likely to turn to civil disobedience to register their dissent. It’s a very dangerous path for the government to take.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Yeah, thought that could be the case, although the legal challenge to the Covid regs (not primary legislation) made me think it might be possible; however if there is no way of challenging such irrational legislation other than at the ballot box, when we have such a flawed electoral system, then people are likely to turn to civil disobedience to register their dissent. It’s a very dangerous path for the government to take.
Click to expand...

I’m not in any way doubting the correctness of this but it just seems totally crazy.

What is the point in any judicial check and balance if the government can just pass legislation to assert a set of facts to be true that allows them to win their case?

You might as well not have courts reviewing legislation at all. Again it seems like another part of our system that is held up on the principle that people behave with integrity but there’s no actual safety net if they behave otherwise.

Whatever the case, to have a unanimous panel of supreme court judges and the UNHRC state Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees and then have 350 MPs in parliament assert by vote that it is is so Orwellian that it boggles my mind.

What “facts” will they legislate for next? That Rishi Sunak is our eternal super emperor?
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I’m not in any way doubting the correctness of this but it just seems totally crazy.

What is the point in any judicial check and balance if the government can just pass legislation to assert a set of facts to be true that allows them to win their case?

You might as well not have courts reviewing legislation at all. Again it seems like another part of our system that is held up on the principle that people behave with integrity but there’s no actual safety net if they behave otherwise.

Whatever the case, to have a unanimous panel of supreme court judges and the UNHRC state Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees and then have 350 MPs in parliament assert by vote that it is is so Orwellian that it boggles my mind.

What “facts” will they legislate for next? That Rishi Sunak is our eternal super emperor?
Click to expand...
Except in a couple of esoteric areas, I’m always going to bow to the superior legal knowledge of @Chris in London - so yes I’m sure he’s correct.

It’s why I get so wound up when people talk about laws being made by a democratically elected parliament, which on the face of it is correct but doesn’t begin to show the full picture. Essentially. a few hundred thousand voters in marginal constituencies give a particular political party carte blanche to do what the fuck it wants for five years, including committing wide spread larceny, without any consequences. As much as I want Labour to win the next election, any delight at that outcome will be severely tempered by the knowledge that they will operate in government under the same corrupt, stinking system.

Our political system is completely broken and it will jump the shark if this preposterous piece of legislation is passed.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I’m not in any way doubting the correctness of this but it just seems totally crazy.

What is the point in any judicial check and balance if the government can just pass legislation to assert a set of facts to be true that allows them to win their case?

You might as well not have courts reviewing legislation at all. Again it seems like another part of our system that is held up on the principle that people behave with integrity but there’s no actual safety net if they behave otherwise.

Whatever the case, to have a unanimous panel of supreme court judges and the UNHRC state Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees and then have 350 MPs in parliament assert by vote that it is is so Orwellian that it boggles my mind.

What “facts” will they legislate for next? That Rishi Sunak is our eternal super emperor?
Click to expand...
What would it take for Charlie boy to intervene as, surely this proposed change to legislation must be raising his eyebrows somewhat. After all, it is his Government
 
mosssideblue said:
What would it take for Charlie boy to intervene as, surely this proposed change to legislation must be raising his eyebrows somewhat. After all, it is his Government
Click to expand...

The moment the crown gets involved in parliamentary affairs is likely the moment we’ll become a republic.

I don’t think he’d get involved even if Sunak were loading refugees into ovens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.