SNP are not offering us freedom
-
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(July 01, 2007 12:14 PM)
"Or, as a secondary thought, the House of Lords??!!!"
the HOL are not elected, but have no real power. The House of Commons can over rule them any time they want. The Commision can pass legislation in most areas but we do not have a say in who is on it (do you really think the British public would vote for Peter Mandelson to be on the commision)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ -
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(July 01, 2007 04:22 PM)
Sorry, but again your not really telling the truth on this matter. The House of Lords do have power, they can defeat a bill twice before the Commons can use the Parliament Acts (2 of them) to force through a bill, but in all honesty the damage would be done by that point, in terms of negative media publicity.
Secondly HoL can actually defeat a bill, if it is near a general election, they can delay it long enough to avoid it being passed, and if the reigning party is defeated at a general election then the bill would more than likely be scrapped.
And as I expressed in my previous post the Commission are subservient to elected bodies who wield the greater power. This idea that we have sold our Parliamentary sovereignty down the river to Brussels is nothing more than xenophobic nonsense from small minded bigots.
As someone who has studied the UK constitution as part of a Law degree, I should know something about this subject.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada? -
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 04:12 AM)
"Sorry, but again your not really telling the truth on this matter. The House of Lords do have power, they can defeat a bill twice before the Commons can use the Parliament Acts (2 of them) to force through a bill, but in all honesty the damage would be done by that point, in terms of negative media publicity"
That isn't always the case. When the government used it to pass the Hunting Act a few years ago the reaction from the general public was very positive.
"And as I expressed in my previous post the Commission are subservient to elected bodies who wield the greater power"
You can slice it any way you want but the fact is that the general public does not get to decide who is on the commission and since the Commision have authority to initiate legislation in most policy areas this can only be considered undemocratic. And I will ask you again, do you really think the UK public would choose Peter Mandelson to be on the commision. Of course not. But we have no say in who is on the commision nor do we have the power to dismiss them if we are unhappy with them.
"This idea that we have sold our Parliamentary sovereignty down the river to Brussels is nothing more than xenophobic nonsense from small minded bigots"
The fact that you have resorted to name calling shows just the way you argue. I find it very offensive that you automatically refer to me as a racist bigot just because I have a differing view about the EU. -
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 06:08 AM)
This was not aimed directly at you, but seeing as you associated yourself with the comment, one could infer that your views are not dissimilar. Seeing as you profess to be a member of UKIP I would have thought it would a name you are comfortable with! People who believe that we have sold our sovereignty either have not looked at how any legislation will be implemented, or choose not to do so for the purpose of their argument. I refer you to S.3 & s.6 of the HRA 1998. The HRA was designed merely "to give further effect" to the Convention, not to follow it lock, stock & barrel. What this demonstrates is very clever 'wriggle room' as it is known in the trade. We endorse the Convention and agree to adhere to it where possible, however we reserve the right to follow our own policies on the matter.
Similarly in England the courts cannot strike down legislation for being incompatible with Convention rights, they can state that it is incompatible but do nothing else. This means that Parliament retains its overall sovereignty.
This is exceptionally clever legal drafting, and I for one whole-heartedly agree with it.
Going back to the HoL, this chamber is full of extremely distinguished legal draftsmen, when they reject a bill, it is not usually out of principle but rather regarding potential unforeseen consequences of the bill. Their views are taken extremely seriously by the Commons. Indeed the HoL has a very active role as a reviewing chamber, they have the time and the skill to look at a bill in the sort of detail that Commons never could. One might make the argument that this is undemocratic because these people are unelected, however many of them are distinguished retired judges and QCs, what purpose would it serve to have these people on the campaign trail?
In respect to your dismissal of my view of the Commission, I would refer you to Aidan O'Neill, Scotland's most respected QC, and one of the most important contemporary legal writers and critics in Scotland. The views I expressed are shared by O'Neill, I guess I just take his views a little more seriously than those of a WWE/UKIP fan!
There is a term regarding the crime of reset in Scotland, "willful blindness" i.e. if you patently ignore the obviously criminal source of goods, then you are still guilty. You seem to be hung up on the Commission, and missing the point that the Commission is a lower entity in the EU than other organizations, which do comprise of people who are directly elected (that and that people on the Commission CAN be elected as MPs - this would be no different from you or I not getting to decide who sits on which Committee within the Scottish Parliament). I think that there must be an acceptance that if you require specialist knowledge in a certain area, then occasionally you hav111ce to look outside of elected bodies. A good parallel would be comparing courts to tribunals. Courts are more formal with greater legal authority, however if there is an employment law technicality will the average Sheriff be the best qualified person to preside over such a matter? Tribunals take the approach of having specialists on the panel, who are in a much better position to accurately gauge the situation. If the net effect of this is a more reliable, more equitable form of justice, surely it cannot be a bad thing?
Finally, you should note that the word "racist" doesn't appear anywhere in my post, we British are not a race, simply a nationality.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada? -
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 07:42 AM)
"This was not aimed directly at you, but seeing as you associated yourself with the comment, one could infer that your views are not dissimilar"
You were replying to comments I made in the post so you can'y blame me for taking the insults you made to heart.
"Seeing as you profess to be a member of UKIP I would have thought it would a name you are comfortable with"
If that isn't implying that you think I'm racist then I don't know what is.
"The views I expressed are shared by O'Neill, I guess I just take his views a little more seriously than those of a WWE/UKIP fan"
This is a democracy, therefore I am entitled to have a different view to O'Neill. And I don't see why my views should just be brushed aside and I should just be treated as an inferior due to what I watch on TV and what Political Party I support.
"In respect to your dismissal of my view of the Commission"
You have also dismissed mine. You have refused to reply to my statement about a man who was removed twice from the british government representing us in the Commision. You also chose to ignore the link to a video about the Commision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ
"Finally, you should note that the word "racist" doesn't appear anywhere in my post"
No but the terms xenophobic, small minded and bigot does.
Seriously, I was enjoying the debate we 5b4were having to begin with. But then you resorted to reffering to me as a racist (sorry, bigot), you also attempted to make me sound stupid just because I like wrestling and pointing out your law degree. Why? Why couldn't you just give me your opinions and leave it at that. There was no need to stoop to dirty underhanded tactics. -
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 08:45 AM)
OK,I can see this degenerating into a fierce battle, so Ill cool it a little bit. The structure of the EU is like a 3 dimensional maze, I should know, I had to learn that crap! Nothing is transparent in the EU, and they insist on giving themselves group titles which sound very similar to other groups. i.e. the Council of the European Union (formerly the Council of Ministers), the European Council, and completely separate the founder members of the ECHR are the Council of E111curope!
Secondly the EU is really just a trading ground, where no punches are pulled, i.e. Poland whining at the latest summit because of Germany's actions in the war! So what you end up with is petty bureaucracy with layers and layers of meaningless legislation, with very little in the way of substance.
There is a general fear that successive liberal (general sense rather than strictly political sense) governments have eroded our sovereignty and handed power to Europe, however this isn't really true. The example I cited of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a great example, you can read it in all its glory on the OPSI site http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm - section 3(1) is the most interesting part - well worth a glance. Similarly, because you are a politically active Scot, have a read at the Scotland Act 1998 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980046.htm - sections 29 (legislative competence) and 57 (Community Law & Convention Rights) should be of interest.
What you should glean from this is that the formation of Scotland's constitution is fundamentally different from that of the rest of the UK, in essence we are far more assured of our Human Rights than our English & Welsh cousins (not a bad thing).
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and yes you are perfectly entitled to express your opinion, however I would like to recommend some background reading to help your aspiring political career. "Scotland's Consitution: Law & Practice" by Himsworth & O'Neill (yes, THAT O'Neill) is a good starting point, and "The Scottish Legal System (3rd Ed)" by White & Willock is another good reference. They are both very dry books, and far from entertaining but they are useful. From a lawyer's perspective the easiest way to recognise the way the system works is to read case law, I cant recommend any English case law books on the subject, however "Human Rights in Scotland: Texts, Cases & Materials" by Ewing & Dale-Risk is a very useful guide for the application of the ECHR and Euro Court decisions in Scots law. Cases such as Starrs v Ruxton have been important in moving the law on in Scotland, in relation to expanding and defending Human Rights.
Hope this helps.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada?