ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by jarrod248

They must have been leant on heavily.

Who by?

Originally Posted by scalieback

Take a look at the preamble, Article 1, Article3, Article 4, Article 66, Article 71 etc. It's all there in my short reading

Well you are wrong - you previously said the Convention was codified into the French constitution which it is clearly not. The Declaration of the Rights of Man does rather predate the Convention!

Originally Posted by scalieback

Never said it was perfect, just that it was a constitution.

I know, and there's plenty of people who would say that it is immutable. I disagree, after all I have no problem with catholics being armed for example.

Edited to add "Just because a document is in parliaments library, doesn't mean it's correct. After all, there's lots of documents in that library."

If you won't accept evidence you're never going to get far in a debate really.

Let us just get settled on one thing - that we are using the same definition of the word "constitution" in relation to a state. My definition would be that the document sets out the relationship between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and as between each branch and the individuals within a state.

If you accept this definition you must then accept that there are no legal constraints on the UK Parliament and the laws it can pass as against its subjects. The Bill of Rights Act and Magna Carta do not change this fact and any Parliament that wished to could repeal them without resorting to a referendum.

However the UK Parliament cannot amend unilaterally European Law or the Convention. Its only option would be to withdraw from the EU and/or the Convention. So long as it remains a signatory it is bound by the Convention. The Convention has acted as a restraint on executive and legislative power in the UK, in that it gives the courts the power to issue declarations of incompatibility and to issue injunctions against certain actions where they would contravene the articles of the Convention.

For this reason it is the closest thing the UK has to a declaration because it is the first real constraint on executive and legislative autonomy.

Originally Posted by scalieback

Which is going back to yours and Hackles point that it had nothing to do with breeding more HR lwyers and creaming more money out of the system. In my book 2 + 2 equals four. More legislation breeds more lawyers which means more money spent in defining what is and is not allowed.

I don't doubt more lawyers were created as a result, however I do not think Blair's motivation was (as many allege) to enrich his wife, who was hardly short of money to begin with. It is not like he (Blair) needed the money.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

Well you are wrong - you previously said the Convention was codified into the French constitution which it is clearly not. The Declaration of the Rights of Man does rather predate the Convention!

Oooohh, harsh words. I said enshrined didn't I? Nothing like seeing someone else's viewpoint is there

Originally Posted by Pyianno

If you won't accept evidence you're never going to get far in a debate really.

And if you can't respect or even understand someone else may have a different opinion to your own, neither will you.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

Let us just get settled on one thing - that we are using the same definition of the word "constitution" in relation to a state. My definition would be that the document sets out the relationship between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and as between each branch and the individuals within a state.

If you accept this definition you must then accept that there are no legal constraints on the UK Parliament and the laws it can pass as against its subjects. The Bill of Rights Act and Magna Carta do not change this fact and any Parliament that wished to could repeal them without resorting to a referendum.

That's where we disagree. They are more than that:

Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status"

Originally Posted by Pyianno

However the UK Parliament cannot amend unilaterally European Law or the Convention. Its only option would be to withdraw from the EU and/or the Convention. So long as it remains a signatory it is bound by the Convention. The Convention has acted as a restraint on executive and legislative power in the UK, in that it gives the courts the power to issue declarations of incompatibility and to issue injunctions against certain actions where they would contravene the articles of the Convention.

I don't recall disagreeing with that.

Originally Posted by Pyianno

For this reason it is the closest thing the UK has to a declaration because it is the first real constraint on executive and legislative autonomy.

As above, I disagree

Originally Posted by Pyianno

I don't doubt more lawyers were created as a result, however I do not think Blair's motivation was (as many allege) to enrich his wife, who was hardly short of money to begin with. It is not like he (Blair) needed the money.

That would be why he mortgaged the house again etc. In my view greedy people get greedy and want more. If there's proof that he didn't hop on that gravy train to help himself and his wife ie evidence that she never made money from it, i might believe you. Until then ..........

I would like to think that if May is mistaken enough to try and realise this aspiration the bill will be brought down by liberal MPs in the coalition.

However, certain Lib Dems are kowtowing to this government no matter how illiberal the legislation and so they can no longer be relied on to do the right thing.

Originally Posted by Whet

I would like to think that if May is mistaken enough to try and realise this aspiration the bill will be brought down by liberal MPs in the coalition.

However, certain Lib Dems are kowtowing to this government no matter how illiberal the legislation and so they can no longer be relied on to do the right thing.

Wow. Politicians bend over and grab their ankles for even a whiff of power. How shocking.

Originally Posted by Gun_Brickie

Wow. Politicians bend over and grab their ankles for even a whiff of power. How shocking.

Unfortunately I thought that most Lib Dem politicians were different. Thank you Mr Clegg for disabusing me of this opinion.

Still, they are paying for it in the Local Elections already.

Originally Posted by Whet

Unfortunately I thought that most Lib Dem politicians were different. Thank you Mr Clegg for disabusing me of this opinion.

Still, they are paying for it in the Local Elections already.

You are a slow learner.

"Pyianno" snip "However the UK Parliament cannot amend unilaterally European Law or the Convention. Its only option would be to withdraw from the EU and/or the Convention. So long as it remains a signatory it is bound by the Convention"

IMHO , yet another good reason to get out of Europe on top of us pissing even more £billions into their corrupt coffers!!