6 ms·

In a system where the government is essentially the majority of the parliament, a law to reinstate the previous practice will be passed pretty soon.

nicky0 6y ago
Not necessarily. Whilst the Priti Patel strain of "law and order first" MP is certainly there, a lot of Tory MPs are quite hot on civil liberties and this is the kind of issue they tend to rebel on.
- PoachedSausage 6y ago
  The kind of civil liberties they like are the rather limited kind, or only for the right kind of people (their voters). During the debate on the November lockdown, the word 'arbitrary' was used a lot, yet they are quiet on the arbitrary nature of the classification of Cannabis, no civil liberties for users of Cannabis (wrong kind of people).
  - Veen 6y ago
    Are you implying that cannabis users exclusively vote Labour? I suppose that explains Jeremy Corbyn.
    - PoachedSausage 6y ago
      No, not a specific political difference, more of a differnce of socio-economic/age/class/possibly even race. As we saw at the last election Corbyn wasn't that popular with some traditional Labour voters. Perhaps we will see some changes now that we are getting stories of Hard Working Families (TM) having to spend large sums of money to buy Cannabis based medications for their children.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    Actually there are a fair few Tories in favour of legalisation of cannabis. Crispin Blunt and Peter Lilley spring to mind as having been relatively forthright on this but quite a few quietly hold these views.
  - nicky0 6y ago
    I was thinking people like Steve Baker (who as it happens is also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform - you might like him!)
- jojobas 6y ago
  If they are so hot on the issue, why did they allow this to happen before this ruling?
  - nicky0 6y ago
    Because it was happening as a matter of common law. It hasn't (yet) been up for debate as a specific question before parliament.
goodcanadian 6y ago
The High Court has ruled it is unconstitutional[0]. It cannot simply be overruled by an act of parliament. [0]Edit: There seem to be objections to my use of the term "unconstitutional." They have ruled it as against common law: “The aversion to general warrants is one of the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is founded. As such, it may not be overridden by statute unless the wording of the statute makes clear that Parliament intended to do so.” These sort of "basic principles" are often referred to as the British constitution or constitutional principles, so I believe my choice of term is correct even if there is no single written document called the "constitution." As to the question of whether parliament can overrule it, perhaps, technically, yes, but I find it very difficult to come up with a scenario that would successfully meet the objections in the ruling.
- Veen 6y ago
  > It cannot simply be overruled by an act of parliament Yes it can. Parliament is sovereign: it can overrule anything it likes with legislation. There is no higher authority than parliament in the UK, not even the Supreme Court. Also, the High Court didn't rule it unconsitutional, it ruled it contrary to common law. The UK is not the US. The executive (Cabinet etc) cannot simply ignore the ruling, but they might be able to get legislation through Parliament to explicitly allow general warrants. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html > That principle means that the courts will, when interpreting the provisions of a statute, presume that Parliament did not intend to legislate in a manner which overrides fundamental common law rights. The common law has an aversion to general warrants that leave significant matters of judgment and discretion to the person executing the warrant rather than to the person legally or constitutionally responsible for issuing it. > In view of the importance of the constitutional principle that there can be no interference with property without clear and specific legal authorisation, the words of an enactment must be unambiguous before the court may interpret Parliament as intending to override rights. There are no such unambiguous words in section 5. The national security context makes no difference as otherwise the courts would sanction wide powers to override fundamental rights.
  - 6y ago
tialaramex 6y ago
There's a difference between having the majority in Parliament (which is generally necessary in order to govern) and being able to muster that majority to vote on some specific matter of interest to the general public. Johnson has a large majority but they don't just answer to him, they answer first and foremost to their constituents, and their constituencies are not Gerrymandered to a tortuous degree so as to make only party loyalty relevant.

nicky0 6y ago

Not necessarily. Whilst the Priti Patel strain of "law and order first" MP is certainly there, a lot of Tory MPs are quite hot on civil liberties and this is the kind of issue they tend to rebel on.

PoachedSausage 6y ago
The kind of civil liberties they like are the rather limited kind, or only for the right kind of people (their voters). During the debate on the November lockdown, the word 'arbitrary' was used a lot, yet they are quiet on the arbitrary nature of the classification of Cannabis, no civil liberties for users of Cannabis (wrong kind of people).
- Veen 6y ago
  Are you implying that cannabis users exclusively vote Labour? I suppose that explains Jeremy Corbyn.
  - PoachedSausage 6y ago
    No, not a specific political difference, more of a differnce of socio-economic/age/class/possibly even race. As we saw at the last election Corbyn wasn't that popular with some traditional Labour voters. Perhaps we will see some changes now that we are getting stories of Hard Working Families (TM) having to spend large sums of money to buy Cannabis based medications for their children.
- tomatocracy 6y ago
  Actually there are a fair few Tories in favour of legalisation of cannabis. Crispin Blunt and Peter Lilley spring to mind as having been relatively forthright on this but quite a few quietly hold these views.
- nicky0 6y ago
  I was thinking people like Steve Baker (who as it happens is also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform - you might like him!)
jojobas 6y ago
If they are so hot on the issue, why did they allow this to happen before this ruling?
- nicky0 6y ago
  Because it was happening as a matter of common law. It hasn't (yet) been up for debate as a specific question before parliament.

goodcanadian 6y ago

The High Court has ruled it is unconstitutional[0]. It cannot simply be overruled by an act of parliament. [0]Edit: There seem to be objections to my use of the term "unconstitutional." They have ruled it as against common law: “The aversion to general warrants is one of the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is founded. As such, it may not be overridden by statute unless the wording of the statute makes clear that Parliament intended to do so.” These sort of "basic principles" are often referred to as the British constitution or constitutional principles, so I believe my choice of term is correct even if there is no single written document called the "constitution." As to the question of whether parliament can overrule it, perhaps, technically, yes, but I find it very difficult to come up with a scenario that would successfully meet the objections in the ruling.

Veen 6y ago
> It cannot simply be overruled by an act of parliament Yes it can. Parliament is sovereign: it can overrule anything it likes with legislation. There is no higher authority than parliament in the UK, not even the Supreme Court. Also, the High Court didn't rule it unconsitutional, it ruled it contrary to common law. The UK is not the US. The executive (Cabinet etc) cannot simply ignore the ruling, but they might be able to get legislation through Parliament to explicitly allow general warrants. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/27.html > That principle means that the courts will, when interpreting the provisions of a statute, presume that Parliament did not intend to legislate in a manner which overrides fundamental common law rights. The common law has an aversion to general warrants that leave significant matters of judgment and discretion to the person executing the warrant rather than to the person legally or constitutionally responsible for issuing it. > In view of the importance of the constitutional principle that there can be no interference with property without clear and specific legal authorisation, the words of an enactment must be unambiguous before the court may interpret Parliament as intending to override rights. There are no such unambiguous words in section 5. The national security context makes no difference as otherwise the courts would sanction wide powers to override fundamental rights.
- 6y ago

tialaramex 6y ago

There's a difference between having the majority in Parliament (which is generally necessary in order to govern) and being able to muster that majority to vote on some specific matter of interest to the general public. Johnson has a large majority but they don't just answer to him, they answer first and foremost to their constituents, and their constituencies are not Gerrymandered to a tortuous degree so as to make only party loyalty relevant.