Is it illegal to use parliamentary procedure to suite your goal?
Surely it's either legal or illegal?No, but it's potentially unlawful.
Surely it's either legal or illegal?
So it's legal then?For it to be illegal it has to be explicitly disallowed by law.
No, but it's potentially unlawful.
For it to be illegal it has to be explicitly disallowed by law.
We have no written constitution. Parliament largely runs on tradition and the rules it has set for itself. Little of what it does, or its procedures, have been challenged in the courts, or written into law.
What governments can do is tempered by the knowledge, that if one party in government does something, then their opponents can also do the same thing when they are in power.
In this regard Johnson has gone too far, and prorogation will in future be used as a political tool, for a government without a firm majority, to frustrate the will of parliament.
So it's legal then?
No.
For it to be legal it'd have to be specifically authorized by law. Legal and illegal aren't opposites.
Might be lawful or unlawful though.
So its neither legal or illegal?No.
For it to be legal it'd have to be specifically authorized by law. Legal and illegal aren't opposites.
Might be lawful or unlawful though.
Interesting assertion that. I wonder if we have a lawyer present who would care to tell us if it's true.Not being illegal makes a thing legal
Thats a little too simplistic.Not being illegal makes a thing legal
Its not really too simplistic, there are laws about sex with a minor, smoking with children in cars and legal limits on speed. If there aren't laws against something then it is not illegal, until they change or pass a law. Care to give an example?Thats a little too simplistic.
Its not illegal to have sex, but it is with a minor, its not illegal to smoke, but it is with children in the car and its not illegal to drive 70mph but it is on a road with a lower prescribed speed limit. Simply something not being illegal doesn't make it legal, context is crucial.
Regarding the topic of this post, which I'm guessing is to do with the Prorogation of parliament, its not illegal to prorogue parliament if to prepare for a new legislative agenda and Queens speech, but it might be illegal if the reason for prorogation is to sidestep parliamentary scrutiny in order to ensure a policy is achieved, especially if it doesn't command majority support in the HofC. That is currently being tested in the court, so we shall see, soon enough, one way or another.
I was simply responding to your post that if its not illegal, then its legal, which is simply not true. Context is everythingIts not really too simplistic, there are laws about sex with a minor, smoking with children in cars and legal limits on speed. If there aren't laws against something then it is not illegal, until they change or pass a law. Care to give an example?
Thats a little too simplistic.
Its not illegal to have sex, but it is with a minor, its not illegal to smoke, but it is with children in the car and its not illegal to drive 70mph but it is on a road with a lower prescribed speed limit. Simply something not being illegal doesn't make it legal, context is crucial.
Regarding the topic of this post, which I'm guessing is to do with the Prorogation of parliament, its not illegal to prorogue parliament if to prepare for a new legislative agenda and Queens speech, but it might be illegal if the reason for prorogation is to sidestep parliamentary scrutiny in order to ensure a policy is achieved, especially if it doesn't command majority support in the HofC. That is currently being tested in the court, so we shall see, soon enough, one way or another.
In that case shouldn't the text of the referendum have included: "This is positively the one and only vote we're ever going to have on this or anything like this and there will never, ever be another vote by anyone, anywhere, ever again on this subject"?The electorate in this country only ever get to take part in anything like true democracy when they are offered a referendum and now that is being pulled apart by people who are trying to defy the referendum results.
Except that it was only advisory, the ‘people’ were expressing a wish not a command.In that case shouldn't the text of the referendum have included: "This is positively the one and only vote we're ever going to have on this or anything like this and there will never, ever be another vote by anyone, anywhere, ever again on this subject"?
Just sayin': that way everyone would know where they stood...