The constitution vs the law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cockney

Cockney

I asked Admin for a user title
Messages
9,472
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Is it illegal to use parliamentary procedure to suite your goal?
 
Cockney said:
Is it illegal to use parliamentary procedure to suite your goal?
Click to expand...

It all depends on what side you are on. If the maneuver benefits you then it is good. If it does not benefit your cause, then it is bad. It is always like this.
 
No, but it's potentially unlawful.
 
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.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
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.
Click to expand...

That reason/risk is surely a good circumstance to test it in a court of law......as is happening.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Things are legal provided they are not proscribed by a law. You do not need a law in order to do something.
 
gerry s said:
Not being illegal makes a thing legal
Click to expand...
Interesting assertion that. I wonder if we have a lawyer present who would care to tell us if it's true. :thinking:
 
gerry s said:
Not being illegal makes a thing legal
Click to expand...
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.
 
jakeblu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
gerry s said:
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?
Click to expand...
I was simply responding to your post that if its not illegal, then its legal, which is simply not true. Context is everything
 
The law works mainly in the negative... things which are specifically made illegal by law are illegal, and everything else is legal.
I rest my case your honour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
jakeblu said:
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.
Click to expand...

By the same token the court may take the view that the reason for this particular parliamentary scrutiny is no more than yet another ongoing attempt to prevent the UK leaving the EU.

We seem to have a lot of people, in various quarters, suddenly screaming about the government being anti-democratic.
We do not have a true democratic system of government in the UK. We have a parliamentary democracy. I.E. the electorate vote for people to take a seat in the H of C. Then the party (usually a minority) with more votes than any other single party forms a government and can proceed to ignore all previous policies and promises. That is far removed from being democratic.
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.
 
Last edited:
arclight said:
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.
Click to expand...
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... :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
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... :naughty:
Click to expand...
Except that it was only advisory, the ‘people’ were expressing a wish not a command.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top