Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Iceland beat the snot out of them by threatening to pull out of NATO and causing a strategical debacle in the Cold War. It was a diplomatic victory not a military one.

[TD1]

Open letter to the Prime Minister

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you about the NI (Executive Functions) Bill, currently before Parliament.

Last week an amendment which seeks to change substantively the law on abortion was tabled to this Northern Ireland Bill by Members of Parliament who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. This Bill had been subject to a fast-track procedure, the constitutional propriety of which has been questioned, and the use of which has most recently been discouraged in the context of Northern Ireland, except in urgent situations,  by the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords. The use of the fast-track procedure reduced even further, the  opportunity for proper scrutiny.

The amendment was then selected even though the clerks advised the Speaker that it was out of scope. Despite the fact that this devolved matter was addressed very recently by the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016 when a clear majority of MLAs voted against changing the law in any way, this amendment was passed. This Bill has, therefore, been extended in a manifestly inappropriate way because basic constitutional procedures regarding selection of amendments were disregarded. 100% of the Northern Ireland MPs who have taken their seats at Westminster, voted against what has become Clause 9 of the bill.  The imposition of this legislation on Northern Ireland in its current form, voted for only by MPs who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, would represent a massive democratic deficit.

As Lord Duncan said in October last year when the previous Act was passed, “As someone who comes from part of the kingdom which has a fully functioning devolved Government, I stress again that these decisions must be taken by the devolved Administration in the north of Ireland. There is no point in pretending we can usurp democracy in that fashion, simply because devolution is not to our liking. Devolution must function even when it is not as we would like to see it, but rather, how it must be”.—[Official Report, 30/10/18; col. 1278.]

Regardless, then, of what one thinks about abortion it is a very big issue and the manner in which there has been an attempt to change abortion law in Northern Ireland this week treats the people of Northern Ireland with contempt, since there is this huge democratic deficit in a situation in which sensitive negotiations are ongoing. It has the capacity to undermine the delicate political calibration between Northern Ireland and Westminster and to cause significant damage to attempts to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly.  We want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly restored and functioning.   

Such significant proposals for change in the UK are normally preceded by at least a three month consultation.  The views of the democratically elected representatives of the people of that part of the UK would be respected.  There would be a full and proper legislative procedure which would permit proper debate about any such significant change and any such bill would follow the normal parliamentary procedures.  It would be dealt with according to convention, and having regard to all our international legal obligations. 

This has not happened in the current bill, and Lord Duncan has been unable to certify that it is fully compliant with European Human Rights Convention obligations. 

That was not the Government’s fault BUT the Government now has a responsibility to respond.

We note that Lord Duncan has said that he intends to re-write the deficiencies in clause 9, which is not legally capable of being implemented, but if this involved placing the power to act on any basis other than the Section 26 power agreed by Parliament, this would involve the Government breaking the Sewell Convention, part of which involved an assurance to the devolved administrations that Government would not legislate on transferred matters, such as abortion, without the consent of the devolved administration. It would also make the Government complicit in the constitutional abuses  which occurred last week in the House of Commons.

We are writing to call on you to do one of two things:

Either withdraw the Bill, which as the NI Attorney General has said is in part “unclear and inconsistent with important human rights texts,” and which is inherently contradictory. We accept that this would require the introduction of another Bill to achieve the legitimate purpose of the original NI (Executive Functions) Bill. It would then be necessary for the Bill to be handled in a way which is not inconsistent with the law, the constitution and the UK’s international obligations.

Alternatively Government could support the amendment introduced by Baroness O’Loan, Lord Eames and Lord Hay, which seeks to address the total democratic deficit of the current bill by requiring that any legislation emanating from Clause 9 must be subject to a public consultation and only laid before Parliament if it has the support of a majority of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

We the under-signed cannot overstate the grave importance of this matter.

[Naturegirl1999]

Open letter to the Prime Minister

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you about the NI (Executive Functions) Bill, currently before Parliament.

Last week an amendment which seeks to change substantively the law on abortion was tabled to this Northern Ireland Bill by Members of Parliament who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. This Bill had been subject to a fast-track procedure, the constitutional propriety of which has been questioned, and the use of which has most recently been discouraged in the context of Northern Ireland, except in urgent situations,  by the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords. The use of the fast-track procedure reduced even further, the  opportunity for proper scrutiny.

The amendment was then selected even though the clerks advised the Speaker that it was out of scope. Despite the fact that this devolved matter was addressed very recently by the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016 when a clear majority of MLAs voted against changing the law in any way, this amendment was passed. This Bill has, therefore, been extended in a manifestly inappropriate way because basic constitutional procedures regarding selection of amendments were disregarded. 100% of the Northern Ireland MPs who have taken their seats at Westminster, voted against what has become Clause 9 of the bill.  The imposition of this legislation on Northern Ireland in its current form, voted for only by MPs who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, would represent a massive democratic deficit.

As Lord Duncan said in October last year when the previous Act was passed, “As someone who comes from part of the kingdom which has a fully functioning devolved Government, I stress again that these decisions must be taken by the devolved Administration in the north of Ireland. There is no point in pretending we can usurp democracy in that fashion, simply because devolution is not to our liking. Devolution must function even when it is not as we would like to see it, but rather, how it must be”.—[Official Report, 30/10/18; col. 1278.]

Regardless, then, of what one thinks about abortion it is a very big issue and the manner in which there has been an attempt to change abortion law in Northern Ireland this week treats the people of Northern Ireland with contempt, since there is this huge democratic deficit in a situation in which sensitive negotiations are ongoing. It has the capacity to undermine the delicate political calibration between Northern Ireland and Westminster and to cause significant damage to attempts to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly.  We want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly restored and functioning.   

Such significant proposals for change in the UK are normally preceded by at least a three month consultation.  The views of the democratically elected representatives of the people of that part of the UK would be respected.  There would be a full and proper legislative procedure which would permit proper debate about any such significant change and any such bill would follow the normal parliamentary procedures.  It would be dealt with according to convention, and having regard to all our international legal obligations. 

This has not happened in the current bill, and Lord Duncan has been unable to certify that it is fully compliant with European Human Rights Convention obligations. 

That was not the Government’s fault BUT the Government now has a responsibility to respond.

We note that Lord Duncan has said that he intends to re-write the deficiencies in clause 9, which is not legally capable of being implemented, but if this involved placing the power to act on any basis other than the Section 26 power agreed by Parliament, this would involve the Government breaking the Sewell Convention, part of which involved an assurance to the devolved administrations that Government would not legislate on transferred matters, such as abortion, without the consent of the devolved administration. It would also make the Government complicit in the constitutional abuses  which occurred last week in the House of Commons.

We are writing to call on you to do one of two things:

Either withdraw the Bill, which as the NI Attorney General has said is in part “unclear and inconsistent with important human rights texts,” and which is inherently contradictory. We accept that this would require the introduction of another Bill to achieve the legitimate purpose of the original NI (Executive Functions) Bill. It would then be necessary for the Bill to be handled in a way which is not inconsistent with the law, the constitution and the UK’s international obligations.

Alternatively Government could support the amendment introduced by Baroness O’Loan, Lord Eames and Lord Hay, which seeks to address the total democratic deficit of the current bill by requiring that any legislation emanating from Clause 9 must be subject to a public consultation and only laid before Parliament if it has the support of a majority of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

We the under-signed cannot overstate the grave importance of this matter.

I’m not European, but will this be sent to the Prime Minister?

[smjjames]

@naturegirl: Pretty sure Prime Minister is gender neutral...

Anyways. Ursula Von der Leyen officially becomes the head of the EU. At least I think the position is supposed to be the head of the EU? Also, she's replacing Donald Tusk I think, right? Not sure if Donald Tusk was actually in the same postion or not, but he was definetly the face of EU parliamentary leadership.

Also, I thought Trump would totally be for an EU army given how he's all 'Others need to take up the slack!'.

[Naturegirl1999]

Oops, I didn’t mean to type the a I meant prime minister. I will edit my previous post accordingly

[Great Order]

Also, I thought Trump would totally be for an EU army given how he's all 'Others need to take up the slack!'.

It's more along the lines of "They need to spend more money and buy from American suppliers"

[Great Order]

I'm not entirely sure on the details of it, but the UK HoC just voted through something to stop the government proroguing parliament. It was advisory.

There's some hilarity in that a lot of leavers are pointing out this is advisory and thus not worth a damn, thus showing all the introspective ability of a plant.

[da_nang]

Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but prepare to raise the Union Jack.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh gee, they turned off their GPS in a heavily armed strait, that's not intentional provocation or anything. I wonder how the CIA trains their sailors?

[Cheesy Honkers]

Not the first time the UK uses it's naval vessels for diplomacy.

[smjjames]

Uh, guys, it was a civillian tanker ship......

[smjjames]

I was referring to the gunboat diplomacy stuff.

Anyways, I wonder, if war breaks out between US and Iran and the UK gets dragged into it one way or another, would that be reason enough to cancel Brexit or at least get the EU to delay it further? Going to war just as you enter economic turmoil is a pretty dumb idea, unless of course the point of the war is to fix the turmoil.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/boris-johnson-iran-gulf-crisis-admiral-lord-west

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/20/new-pm-take-note-iran-crisis-could-escalate-into-war

[Il Palazzo]

Question: is Boris' hair going to have a special relationship with Donald's?

[Kagus]

Congrats on the new Boris, lads.

[smjjames]

It was inevitable.

Boris Johnson's Trumplikeness aside, there is still potential for fireworks as a good chunk of his party (and likely a good chunk of the rest of Parliament) are threatening to revolt if he tries to force through no-deal Brexit. To the point of having a plan that would involve the Queen, though it's more like leverage rather than actually going through with it.

There's still a chance of course, of no-deal Brexit going through whether Johnson is trying to force it through or not.