4 ms·
> Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity o
by dofm 1mo ago
> Have they (the keir starmer bunch) or have they not issued a law without the crucial details - how to do it, the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?
This (a law with a separate binding statutory instrument to implement it) is actually a pretty normal formulation of British law. It's not unique to this situation, nor is it a sign of malfeasance. It's worked pretty well before, it is far from unscrutinised (the statutory instruments pass through at least one cross-party committee) and they save us from the absurdity of massive, fully complete legislation written by lobbyists that representatives cannot meaningfully read and end up stuffed with pork barrel, special interest and unrelated legislation.
The law is voted on in the Commons on the basis that a statutory instrument will not exceed its reach. Committees make sure they don't; laws get amended if they do. (Cross-party committees work better in the UK than in the USA)
Again: we do law a bit differently here. I do not think it necessarily inferior to US law.
- mdp2021 1mo agoAnd what happens when the "law missing the crucial details" is not implementable, does not have an acceptable "statutory instrument" because there exist no good solutions? Surely there exist cases where details are unimportant - but normally what counts is achieving in the conception of a solution, because pointing at the problem is trivial. Setting an abstract goal is a no-cost effort; navigating the "compromises" is the actual work. As I wrote, «the whole matter is absurd without full clarity on "how to do it"?»: plainly the issue is "how to have an age verification mechanism" when it clashes with the basicmost right to anonimity, and not defining the crucial detail consists in abysmal levels of inability and in criminal terror.