4 ms·

Honestly it's pretty scary how easy it is to pass such legislation in the UK. That's what happens when there's no written concise framework of government but c

by sofixa 4y ago

Honestly it's pretty scary how easy it is to pass such legislation in the UK. That's what happens when there's no written concise framework of government but centuries of "tradition" and "precedent" that are improvised upon, and which have no special threshold of change (e.g. to change the constitution in some countries requires a special assembly, or qualified majority, or plebiscite, etc.).

thinkingemote 4y ago
Legislation can be passed but there are still some checks in the legislature. Takes time though but there's examples where the judges have deemed a law unlawful. Usually based on common law basis. With this law I'd say that all of what it's trying to address is already covered by existing laws. For example, harassment in public spaces is already illegal.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Usually based on common law basis Oh, that's a great basis. Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century and a judge decided whatever, how very useful as a legal base upon which to decide modern things. (Like that story which is the basis of contract law about some ships a couple of centuries ago). It's quite sad how obsolete and overcomplicated for no reason whatsoever (as in, to understand a case today, you have to go dig up precedents going back centuries to understand how they might impact this case; no wonder there's entire professions, software, AI assistants to help lawyers navigate this quagmire) common law is, and how countries have stuck with it.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century I think the point of "common law" is that the precedents describe laws that people basically understand, and they expect that what governs their behaviour now is the law they understand. Statute law, especially modern statute law, tends to be a mess of exceptions, definitions and cross-references. It's all legalese, and only an expert can understand it. Plus, it's all subject to intepretation by the courts, so precedent affects statute law as well as common law. And unlike statutes, most court precedents aren't publicly accessible, unless you have access to a law library or Westlaw. If you expect people to obey the law, then you need to express it in ways that people can understand. If they don't know what the law is, you can't expect them to comply. One of the nice things about the US constitution is that it's mostly written in fairly plain English. I suppose that might be why many non-Americans admire it. One of the nastiest things about it, though, is that its so damned difficult to change.
- jruohonen 4y ago
  Yet, some analysts have hinted that the UK might be even leaving the ECtHR, which I'd consider the chief European court on these matters.
- bloak 4y ago
  Can you give an example of a law being deemed unlawful on common law basis? My understanding is that typically precedent is used in the absence of statute law and for the interpretation of statute law, so a new law will typically override older precedents. Perhaps it's up to a judge to decide which takes precedence if two statutes contradict each other, but really that shouldn't happen (Parliament employs lawyers to check for that sort of thing) and if a statute states explicitly that it overrides an earlier one then it does so, as I understand it. (I'm not a lawyer, not even a competent amateur, just interested in this stuff and hoping someone will correct my misunderstandings.)
spacebanana7 4y ago
The scariest legislation happened during WW1/WW2. If there’s a majority in parliament for press censorship, banning strikes outright, or sending millions of men to France without regard for their will then there’s no legal or traditional limit on what a parliamentary majority can do.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  Not sure how much of that can be blamed on the system - countries with written constitutions and enumerated rights (United States, France) also implemented drafts and massively restricted individual freedoms during the wars. The US even went so far as to imprison the leader of the Socialist Party for his opposition to the WWI draft and urging resistance. He ran his final presidential campaign from a prison cell.
Symbiote 4y ago
A proper, written constitution and a suitable head of state and court to uphold it is the primary objective of the republican protesters. https://www.republic.org.uk/britains_daft_constitution https://www.republic.org.uk/britains_daft_constitution
- growse 4y ago
  The devil (as ever) is in the detail though. A "proper, written constitution" is of little value if the next parliament can just amend it. People seem to look across the pond with envy at the US, neatly forgetting the completely different arrangements that make their constitution hard to amend, and also forgetting the problems that arise from having a hard-to-amend constitution (e.g. the second amendment).
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    From the page I linked, under the huge heading "The problems with our constitution" the second heading is "Change is in the hands of government".
    - growse 4y ago
      Sure, so if we're going all the way down the route of "parliament is no longer sovereign" and throwing away the principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament (which has been a bedrock principle for a good while now), then that's... a view, certainly. I wonder why they don't lead their manifesto with the statement "we believe that parliament should no longer be sovereign"?
      - sofixa 4y ago
        > that no parliament can bind a future parliament (which has been a bedrock principle for a good while now) It's that the excuse the UK uses when it breaks international agreements? And I wonder how it works for the ones it hasn't broken (e.g. Good Friday) or stuff like debts. And things existing "for a good while" is a shitty reason for them to continue existing. The same could be applied to the monarch, or the legal system.

by sofixa 4y ago

thinkingemote 4y ago

Legislation can be passed but there are still some checks in the legislature. Takes time though but there's examples where the judges have deemed a law unlawful. Usually based on common law basis. With this law I'd say that all of what it's trying to address is already covered by existing laws. For example, harassment in public spaces is already illegal.

sofixa 4y ago
> Usually based on common law basis Oh, that's a great basis. Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century and a judge decided whatever, how very useful as a legal base upon which to decide modern things. (Like that story which is the basis of contract law about some ships a couple of centuries ago). It's quite sad how obsolete and overcomplicated for no reason whatsoever (as in, to understand a case today, you have to go dig up precedents going back centuries to understand how they might impact this case; no wonder there's entire professions, software, AI assistants to help lawyers navigate this quagmire) common law is, and how countries have stuck with it.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century I think the point of "common law" is that the precedents describe laws that people basically understand, and they expect that what governs their behaviour now is the law they understand. Statute law, especially modern statute law, tends to be a mess of exceptions, definitions and cross-references. It's all legalese, and only an expert can understand it. Plus, it's all subject to intepretation by the courts, so precedent affects statute law as well as common law. And unlike statutes, most court precedents aren't publicly accessible, unless you have access to a law library or Westlaw. If you expect people to obey the law, then you need to express it in ways that people can understand. If they don't know what the law is, you can't expect them to comply. One of the nice things about the US constitution is that it's mostly written in fairly plain English. I suppose that might be why many non-Americans admire it. One of the nastiest things about it, though, is that its so damned difficult to change.
jruohonen 4y ago
Yet, some analysts have hinted that the UK might be even leaving the ECtHR, which I'd consider the chief European court on these matters.
bloak 4y ago
Can you give an example of a law being deemed unlawful on common law basis? My understanding is that typically precedent is used in the absence of statute law and for the interpretation of statute law, so a new law will typically override older precedents. Perhaps it's up to a judge to decide which takes precedence if two statutes contradict each other, but really that shouldn't happen (Parliament employs lawyers to check for that sort of thing) and if a statute states explicitly that it overrides an earlier one then it does so, as I understand it. (I'm not a lawyer, not even a competent amateur, just interested in this stuff and hoping someone will correct my misunderstandings.)

spacebanana7 4y ago

The scariest legislation happened during WW1/WW2. If there’s a majority in parliament for press censorship, banning strikes outright, or sending millions of men to France without regard for their will then there’s no legal or traditional limit on what a parliamentary majority can do.

DoughnutHole 4y ago
Not sure how much of that can be blamed on the system - countries with written constitutions and enumerated rights (United States, France) also implemented drafts and massively restricted individual freedoms during the wars. The US even went so far as to imprison the leader of the Socialist Party for his opposition to the WWI draft and urging resistance. He ran his final presidential campaign from a prison cell.

Symbiote 4y ago

A proper, written constitution and a suitable head of state and court to uphold it is the primary objective of the republican protesters. https://www.republic.org.uk/britains_daft_constitution https://www.republic.org.uk/britains_daft_constitution

growse 4y ago
The devil (as ever) is in the detail though. A "proper, written constitution" is of little value if the next parliament can just amend it. People seem to look across the pond with envy at the US, neatly forgetting the completely different arrangements that make their constitution hard to amend, and also forgetting the problems that arise from having a hard-to-amend constitution (e.g. the second amendment).
- Symbiote 4y ago
  From the page I linked, under the huge heading "The problems with our constitution" the second heading is "Change is in the hands of government".
  - growse 4y ago
    Sure, so if we're going all the way down the route of "parliament is no longer sovereign" and throwing away the principle that no parliament can bind a future parliament (which has been a bedrock principle for a good while now), then that's... a view, certainly. I wonder why they don't lead their manifesto with the statement "we believe that parliament should no longer be sovereign"?
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > that no parliament can bind a future parliament (which has been a bedrock principle for a good while now) It's that the excuse the UK uses when it breaks international agreements? And I wonder how it works for the ones it hasn't broken (e.g. Good Friday) or stuff like debts. And things existing "for a good while" is a shitty reason for them to continue existing. The same could be applied to the monarch, or the legal system.