4 ms·
Do we have any English lawyers here who can comment on whether it may actually be legal to nationalise Adele (the person) under English law? ChatGPT says it may
by d4ng 2mo ago
Do we have any English lawyers here who can comment on whether it may actually be legal to nationalise Adele (the person) under English law? ChatGPT says it may be possible through an act of parliament, but I’m unsure whether I can trust ChatGPT in this case.
- saaaaaam 2mo agoLawyer here.[0] Definitely possible.[1] [0] not a lawyer [1] what does “nationalise” even mean?
- FabCH 2mo agoTypically, the government takes over a company. The shareholders or owners may or may not receive compensation. Presumably a normal(?) interpretation would be that the British government uses whatever eminent domain law it has and it takes over Adels copyright on all her songs and gives her whatever the fair market value of the catalog is. But because this is a joke candidate, could be anything.
- saaaaaam 2mo agoYes, exactly, yes.
- d4ng 2mo agoTake into public ownership.
- saaaaaam 2mo agoWhat does “take into public ownership” even mean? Etc.
- philistine 2mo agoEvery Briton is entitled to one lunch with Adele.
- card_zero 2mo agoIf we project her lifespan as 50 more years and assume the UK population stays stable at 70 millions, that works out at 3835 and a half lunches per day.
- tomashubelbauer 2mo agoI seriously doubt as a public servant she'd be a beacon of efficiency so I don't think she'll do more than 2k a day if this happens.
- saaaaaam 2mo agoMaybe she skips the main on every other lunch?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- saaaaaam 2mo agoThe most lunches I’ve ever eaten in a day was 7.
- M95D 2mo agoWhat's the biggest restaurant in UK? How many people can have lunch with Adele at the same time?
- saaaaaam 2mo agoYou’re paying…
- rsynnott 2mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosioi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosioi , presumably.
- saaaaaam 2mo agoΔημόσιοι υπάλληλοι
- red_admiral 2mo agoA joke on the goverment nationalising the railways and the debate around whether we should nationalise water companies.
- saaaaaam 2mo agoCan water even be nationalised? Do you own the rain that falls on my roof? Can you charge me money if I use it to water my garden?
- rsynnott 2mo agoGenerally water nationalisation means nationalising the companies which supply water to homes and businesses. Not, er, literally nationalising water as in the substance.
- ndsipa_pomu 2mo agoWater companies used to be publicly owned until Thatcher privatised them. Unfortunately, as they are a natural monopoly (you cannot choose which company to supply your water services apart from moving to a different part of the country), the companies have basically been extracting as much money as possible from the public and not investing in the infrastructure. This has led to ridiculous bills for water and disastrous performance in terms of not pouring sewage into waterways. The classic example is Thames Water which is now saddled with incredible debts and is asking for yet more money to invest in infrastructure (which they didn't do all the other times they asked for more money).
- aorist 2mo agoYes, Parliament has absolute and unlimited power (except binding future Parliaments, and maybe arguably some matters relating to Scotland): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... (not a lawyer)
- noir_lord 2mo agoIndeed which is why "taking back sovereignty" as an argument by the pro-Brexit folks was a bit disingenuous (if I'm been kind). It would also require us leaving a whole bunch of international treaties though since "Nationalising a pop singer" kinda breaches a few of them.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- ZiiS 2mo agoParliament theoretically has unlimited power, practically I think this stops short of reintroducing actual slavery. Lawyers would be busy arguing in international courts; but hopefully 50℅ of the electorate might actually bother to vote.
- ZiiS 2mo ago(Obviously the MP for Clacton has the power to talk sturnly to someone with actual power in the councel over the bin collection schedule; the is no plausable way to deliver any of their pledges)
- classified 2mo agoWhat is 50c/o? That “℅” is not a percent sign.
- SV_BubbleTime 2mo agoIt appears to be a high percentage of one though.
- enquirewithin 2mo agoInternational courts? Who cares about those? North Korea? China? Russia? Israel? Gaza? Iran? The USA? What’s are international courts going to do about it? Gaol Britain? Apply sanctions?
- tpm 2mo agoif we want to be anal, UK cares a bit because of the GFA, North Ireland peace agreements. An international agreement is a part of those & also it's very important to the UK for various reasons, some even characterize it as de-facto a part of the UK's constitution. And it binds the UK to the ECHR.
- petesergeant 2mo agoA simple bill of attainder would do it, but she'd have recourse to the ECHR to appeal it, which would in practice bind the UK. If we thought she wasn't going to be chill with it, we'd first need to withdraw from the ECHR. As it happens, withdrawing from the the ECHR is a prime Farage objective.
- enquirewithin 2mo agoHuman rights only apply to those what are willing to defend them. What’s Europe going to do, send in a deal team to extract Adele?
- scj 2mo agoNot a Brit, not a lawyer... The promise could be re-interpreted in some funny ways. For example, Count Binface didn't specify when nationalizing Adele would occur. They could create another[0] special case in UK copyright law with a minor twist: Instead of eventually entering the public domain, the copyright of Adele's works would transfer to the UK government which would donate any proceeds to a charity that builds affordable homes. Silly, but it'd mean two promises kept. [0] https://neverlandofficial.com/discover/peter-pan-copyright/ https://neverlandofficial.com/discover/peter-pan-copyright/
- pseudohadamard 2mo agoOr which Adele he'd nationalize.