There may be some interest in the E.U. referendum but let's not lose sight of the real question in Europe this evening...
Who will win Eurovision?
Well I think Italy should win but I fear my forecasting may not stand to help much in the performer's favour.
A very entertaining contest - likely every bit as exciting as the E.U. referendum in its own way
In both these great European questions even China & Uncle Sam have taken an interest.
Many similarities - just much more singing in one case.
With P.M. Mr. Cameron having pulled off something of a coup in securing 'Special Status' for the U.K. (including, significantly, treaty change) in the European Council meeting on 19th February 2016 he may well have 'shot the fox' of those who will campaign for a 'No' to continuing U.K. membership of the E.U.
Now the 'Dogs of War' will be let slip in the EU referendum campaign as pre-statement Cabinet restrictions on advocating a position on the EU referendum question are lifted.
Even as the P.M made his speech at the conclusion of the Brussels negotiations, George Galloway was revealed as a surprising ally by Nigel Farage.
Mr. Cameron appears to be coping, admirably, with the Brexit position taken by Michael Gove. with the P.M.s strong position - removing the U.K. from any obligation towards closer political union he may well have increased his chances of swinging Boris Johnson's support in favour of staying in the E.U.
Any scope for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJE) to inhibit the negotiated policies will disappear as these policies manifest in treaty change & legitimately shape the treaty objectives that it is the job of the CJEU to support.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the No referendum campaigners - who often assert that the EU is non-democratic - happen to be assisted by a democratically elected European Parliament who represent the last chance to unseat the package completed at the European Council meeting.
Some seasoned 'Brexit' campaigners have been positioning their artillery ahead of the referendum campaign.
A parliamentary debate on the BBC licence fee is scheduled amidst recent concerns over BBC bias on the referendum. No doubt a coincidence.
A parliamentary debate on the question that has vexed the P.M. himself on prisoners' voting rights is also going to draw one of the popular misapprehensions in public debate - that the EU is synonymous with the ECHR - into focus as the referendum campaign gets underway. No doubt a coincidence.
It may well be that one of the Government's strongest counters to the No campaign will include an increase of power for the U.K. Supreme Court as part of Mr. Cameron's express wish to bolster the principle of sovereignty.
No matter what position is taken with regard to the P.M. it is very difficult to deny that he has pulled off a remarkable political feat.
The two senior justices of the U.K. Supreme Court (UKSC), Lord Neuberger & Baroness Hale, certainly appear to welcome dialogue between themselves, as authoritative representatives of the UKSC, & others and now visit Westminster, on at least an annual basis, to facilitate a dialogue between the UKSC & the legislature.
The discussion at the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Evidence Session with the President & Deputy President of the Supreme Court, held on Wednesday 8th July 2015, is well worth reading or watching/listening to if you have a spare moment after your main study commitments are completed:
PDF version:
Audio-visual recording on Parliament TV:
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/fac7751a-1b3a-41f3-b5ec-1cd1b17cbb05?in=11:19:51
Note, first, what Lord Neuberger & Lady Hale say in answer to q.6 (PDF p.8 onwards)
Lord Neuberger: “We [i.e. the U.K. Supreme Court] are undoubtedly, as you say, for the various reasons—internally devolution and externally Europe—developing constitutional characteristics, but unless and until we have a constitution and unless and until that constitution, as is the case with almost all constitutions, gives the court power effectively in exceptional cases to override Parliament, we are not a constitutional court.
Lady Hale: “We do constitutional things, so in that sense, yes, we are a constitutional court. We do those things because Parliament has told us to do those things, otherwise we would not be doing them.”
Then consider this:
BBC News website 17/02/2016:
“Mr Cameron's sovereignty plan is expected to suggest extra powers for the UK Supreme Court to protect UK law from challenges from the European Court of Justice, to assert the primacy of UK law over Brussels.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35592466
No doubt the U.K. Government will have noted the U.K. Supreme Court’s obiter remarks in the HS2 case. Remember the HS2 case rather discloses the view of the senior judiciary that there may be scope to ring-fence core constitutional rights, such as are found in the Bill of Rights etc, from what might be viewed as occasional & arguably, depending on your viewpoint, excessive & inappropriate encroachment resulting to a degree from the U.K.’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and even more so under the principle of the primacy of EU law.
The Supreme Court will, of course, have to wait for an issue with the relevant circumstances to be presented for deliberation that affords scope to make an authoritative judgment that would ‘cement’ the HS2 views into case law. However in the meantime these weighty 'judicial-asides' surely reflect the current of likely constitutional thought in the UKSC.
The U.K. Government may well be looking to add its oar to any prospect of judicial ring-fencing of core constitutional principles by seeking to increase the powers of the U.K. Supreme Court. Perhaps the Government is raising its signal pennants to indicate its support of the UKSC position. After all, that is a stance that might put the wind in the sails of the uniquely positioned U.K. constitution with its distinguishing core concept of Parliamentary Supremacy. Currently the concept of parliamentary sovereignty is rather bobbing in the wash like a determined Oxford punt, with A.V. Dicey on board. But it does so amidst an, otherwise, constitutionally uniform Continental flotilla comprising, amongst others, Venetian gondolas, Dutch vlieboots & Spanish barcas - all splashing Dicey's Vinerian gown in their Civilian wake. Perhaps the U.K. Government is looking to fit an outboard motor to Dicey's punt?
Back in the Westminster committee, Lord Neuberger subsequently states: “As Lady Hale says, in the end our job is, subject to common-law principles, to do what Parliament asks us to do. If there is a new role of a somewhat different nature, then certainly we would want to be consulted about it in terms of feasibility and practicality, but, if it was decided that we would do it, then it is very difficult to think of circumstances where we would not do our best to do it. I hope we would rise to the occasion, as I like to think we have done so far.”
The Scotch Whisky Association are challenging the Scottish Parliament's legislation on minimum alcohol pricing.
In a recent court discussion both the U.K. government and the Scottish government had legal representatives to reply to the Scotch Whisky Association's concerns.
In particular the Scotch Whisky Association requested access to a European Commission Opinion on the Scottish Parliament legislation regarding minimum alcohol pricing.
Despite the E.U.'s promotion of transparency the U.K. Government lawyers (who presented the argument on behalf of both governments) argued that the document should remain confidential.
Lord Woolman allowed the Scotch Whisky Association sight of the Opinion but under strict condition that the contents were kept confidential. He noted some concern that it would be difficult to consider the matter properly if the E.U. Opinion was not made available to the Scotch Whisky Association.
So it seems quite an uncomfortable day when the B.B.C. report that the E.U. Opinon has been leaked anyway and that on the same day that the Scotch Whisky Association opens a display in the Holyrood lobby.
Cheers!
http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/news-media/news/scotch-whisky-from-grain-to-glass-exhibition-opens/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20533189
In Principal Reporter v K 2010 the UK Supreme COurt has considered an issue arising from civil procedure in Scotland.
The Supreme Court examined the parental rights and responsibilities of an unmarried father and his status in respect of a Children's Hearing and considered, amongst other issues, the compatibiility of the present Children's hearings scheme with the rights of the father (and child) under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The issue had been raised before the First Division of the Court of Session on January 21st 2010 with a bench including the Lord President Lord Hamilton which refused the father's assertion that his Convention rights had been infringed.
The father appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
At paragraph 32 of his judgment Lord Hope notes that: 'The Scottish Parliament is currently examining the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill, which deals with the standing of unmarried fathers in clauses 80(3) and 185(1). The Parliament is obliged to legislate compatibly with the Convention rights.'
The recent case of Cadder v HMA 2010 UKSC led to rare Emergency Legislation being rushed through Holyrood. Cadder argued that his ECHR Art. 6 right to a fair trial had been infringed by a lack of legal representation during police detention connected to alleged criminal behaviour. His appeal to the UKSC therefore originated in the criminal process.
In Martin & Miller v HMA UKSC 2010. The UKSC, by a majority of 3:2, agreed with the High Court that the changes made by Holyrood to road traffic offences were within the legislative competence of Holyrood.
In a judgment published on 3rd March 2010 Lord Hope (The Deputy-President of the Supreme Court and an eminent Scottish Judge) discussed section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions early in his judgment.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not a Holyrood Act of 2007 - that increased the sentence that a sheriff could impose under summary prosecution for driving while disqualified - was competent.
The Telegraph carries an article about a case from the English Court of Appeal concerning indirect sex discrimination. (The English Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal from a claim that originated in an employment tribunal in England).
Employment law is very largely identical in England and Scotland and this ruling will certainly be taken account of where similar circumstances arise before a Scottish employment tribunal.
Bonuses that were paid to the predominantly male gardeners & road workers were not paid to cleaners. Because cleaners are generally female the bonuses are, potentially, indirectly discriminatory.
The Court of Appeal are allowing the council involved a chance to present a legitimate justification for this potentially discriiminatory policy.
If the council can't justify the policy they will be liable to pay the cleaning staff compensation.
In December 2009 the new U.K. Supreme Court heard its first devolution matters since it took over the role from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The judgments will be published tomorrow (Wednesday 10th February) at 9.45 am.
The U.K. Supreme Court's webpage can be found at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html
The Private Member’s Bill
In addition to the bills introduced by the Government, an individual Westminster M.P. may, on occasion, win the opportunity to introduce a Private Member’s Bill. However they must be one of the few M.P.s chosen by ballot to do so. The ballot to choose which 20 individual Westminster M.P.s will be allowed an opportunity to introduce a bill themselves in 2009-10 has recently been completed. Those chosen by ballot may try to alter the law in an area that they feel requires change by introducing a Private Member’s Bill. This is the most likely opportunity for an individual M.P. to change the law. There is also the ‘10 Minute Rule Bill’ and the ‘Presentation Bill’ but the vital resource of parliamentary time is not available to these latter two mechanisms in the same way that time is available for Private Members’ Bills. 13 Fridays each full session are set aside for Private Members’ Bills. A change to the law that is not politically contentious and likely to attract cross-party support stands a reasonable chance of passing into law. However Government support is seen as the most important factor because the Government has many opportunities of sinking a Private Member’s Bill – for example by a Minster choosing to appear late in the debates on a Private Member’s Bill so that it runs out of its allocated time before a vote on the Second Reading. The lucky M.P.s are listed on the webpage linked below. Dr. Brian Iddon, David Chaytor and Andrew Gwynne are the first three names on the ballot and stand a realistic chance of seeing their proposals pass into law. The rest will use the opportunity of a place on the ballot to air an issue that concerns them in Parliament’s time whilst.
http://www.parliament.uk/faq/ballot_faq_page.cfm
A Private Member’s Bill may also be introduced in the House of Lords where the political atmosphere is less aggressive allowing Private Members’ Bills to progress to the House of Commons without minimal dispute.
The Legislative Process in Westminster – The Stages of a Bill:
The Westminster parliament website is well worth a visit. It has a useful webpage that guides you through the passage of a Bill in the U.K. parliament. It can be accessed at:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage_bill/index.htm
Track the Progress of a Particular Bill:
There is also a webpage on the U.K. parliament website that tracks the progress of all bills in the U.K. parliament. The 2009-10 bills include a ‘Constitutional Reform Bill’ and a ‘Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill’. The two are quite distinct in a number of ways – not least in their respective chances of successfully completing the parliamentary process to become law. The webpage can be found at:
Some of the Westminster Bills presented in the Queen’s Speech, on Wednesday 18th November 2009, will apply only in England. An example is the Personal Care at Home Bill. The Scottish parliament makes its own laws concerning health and social work (see Block 1, Unit 2, p.53) so this Westminster bill doesn’t extend to Scotland.
The Digital Economy Bill, however, dealing with the communications infrastructure, will apply across the U.K. The Digital Economy Bill has no aspects requiring legislative consent motions from the Scottish parliament. Illustrating the wider devolution arrangements in the U.K. however the Assembly in Northern Ireland will have to give its consent to changes in its distinct video games classification system as a result of Westminster’s Digital Economy Bill.
However a surprising number of Bills will involve Westminster legislating in devolved areas and so will require legislative consent motions. In the Scottish parliament, also on Wednesday 18th November 2009, Bruce Crawford, Minster for parliamentary business, spelled out a list of Bills from the Queen’s Speech in respect of which legislative consent motions would be lodged at Holyrood. These include, for example, the Crime and Security Bill. The full list indicated by Mr. Crawford can be found at the link below. Scroll half-way down the page and look for ‘Queen’s Speech’.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/pqa/wa-09/wa1118.htm
So Westminster clearly continues to play a very important role in shaping contemporary Scots law – even legislating in a surprising number of matters that are devolved to the Scottish parliament.
Consent Withheld in 2010?
Questions concerning the use of legislative consent motions are undoubtedly going to figure in the political debates leading up to the U.K. General Election. There is every possibility that, for the first time, we will see Holyrood withhold its consent to Westminster legislating in a devolved area over the coming months. Mark Mr. Crawford’s words in response to the legislative menu in the Queen’s Speech: ‘The Scottish Government will, in due course, lodge memoranda and motions for these bills, once they have been introduced in the UK Parliament. It will then be for the Scottish Parliament to determine whether to give or withhold consent.’
The parliamentary year of 2008 - 2009 at Westminster in London ended on the 12th of November. The process of making law in parliament ends with the Royal Assent being given.
A number of new Acts of Parliament were 'brought to life' as they received the Royal Assent on the last day of the parliamentary session. This shows the role still played in the legal process by the Monarch, the Queen, as the Head of State.
The Queen isn't actually at Westminster at the end of the process, her assent is given in her absence as part of a formal ceremony with the words of assent delivered in archaic Norman French language.
This link takes you to a relevant webpage:
http://news.parliament.uk/2009/11/royal-assent-12-november-2009/
And the new parliamentary year begins this Wednesday 18th November when, at 11.20 am, the Queen gives a speech outlining what laws her government will seek to pass in the new session 2009 - 2010. This is an incredibly elaborate event with the 'Commons summoned to squash into the House of Lords. This is where the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are seen making uncomfortable small talk as they enter the House of Lords together.
http://news.parliament.uk/2009/07/state-opening-of-parliament-2009/
Keep an eye on the news, or better still the BBC Parliament Channel to see how elaborate is the ceremony.
Do these laws made in Westminster affect Scotland?
You'll find out in Block 1, Unit 2.
This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.
