Wrong question. Correct question is who is the highest authority on British laws. Answer is Parliament.Originally Posted by Aimless
Who says the convention needs changing? If the European Court was insisting on this idiocy it would need changing but it isn't so that's moot.
The answer is wrong of course, in some cases the highest authority is outside the UK. In the case of binding resolutions by the UNSC the highest authority isn't even in Europe.
Congratulations America
UNSC resolutions are not higher than Parliament. If the UNSC rules one way and Parliament rules another then the law is whatever Parliament says it is.
The concept is called democracy.
No it's not. It's called sovereignty. Democracy has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
(also, while Parliament's status as the highest authority is indeed called parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, it does not relate to sovereignty in its standard formulation in the slightest and everyone else refers to the concept as parliamentary supremacy for that reason)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I see you simply do not understand the basics of international treaties. The illusions you have about the superpowers of your parliament are worthy of the Marvel omniverse.
Congratulations America
Why do you two bother when you both know you're going to intentionally talk past each other and ignore the frame of reference and context of the others' statements?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I understand the basics of international treaties, they work as long as they're respected - no more, no less. Rather than some naive candyland version of international treaties that you seem to believe in. It require a true Superpower for a treaty to override national laws if the national framework doesn't agree to let it do so.
If the US Congress, President and SCOTUS ruled one way on an issue and the UNSC somehow despite an American veto (just like we have a veto) ruled another way - would you be naive and ignorant enough to believe that the UNSC trumps the US Congress, President and SCOTUS on American laws? Or are you only that naive and ignorant on our laws?
Indeed I've used the phrase Parliamentary sovereignty repeatedly this thread, but given that we elect Parliament democratically then democracy is involved as if we dislike what Parliament does we can eject the MPs of the current Parliament and the next Parliament can reverse what the prior one did.
But that's irrelevant. The use of sovereignty in that fashion isn't predicated on coming from democracy. It's no different from a dictator changing his mind and reversing a dictat. What matters in such cases is the source of the initial act and its reversal having supremacy, not the process of selection into that position of supremacy.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I refer to my earlier post. Also, the UK isn't a super power, not even close to it.
Congratulations America
It is relevant because we chose to make Parliament sovereign over many centuries because we elect it, it has the powers it has due to democracy. The demos has expanded to more than just landowners but the principle remains. To ignore that is to ignore the background and principles involved. Parliamentary sovereignty is the sovereignty of the people. We do not elect the UNSC which is why it does not and never will replace those we do elect as the ultimate source of all laws.
Either way this is a sidetrack. The fact is in a conflict between Parliament and the UNSC the law is that determined by Parliament. Just as in the USA.
The irony is that Hazir might have known that EU law (which this case is not about) does trump British law if it is in conflict. That is by virtue of the 1972 Act of Parliament that says so. Parliament has the ability to reverse that Act but unless it does so that is the case.
No such law exists for the UNSC or ECHR though. So Parliament has not given its law making powers to them.
That is entirely irrelevant.
Section 3 of that act specifically requires you to take this kind of thing to the ECJ if the matter is as you've portrayed it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is not an ECJ matter. ECHR != ECJ just as Council of Europe != EU.
It really isn't.
If some mobster forged an alliance with the BNP and seized control of the your country by violence with the criminal class, racist thugs, and soccer hooligans, and cowed the rest of the population, his actions in the same space will be just as much an exercise in UK sovereignty as Parliaments, despite only having a year or two of history and not being elected. Legitmacy and sovereignty are not linked. At all. Legitimacy is just a way to maintain the explicit and implicit consent of the governed, the same way the naked use of force and coercion is.because we chose to make Parliament sovereign over many centuries because we elect it, it has the powers it has due to democracy.
You apparently don't understand the background and principles involved. As evidence by the fact that you went right back to using sovereignty and "parliamentary sovereignty"/legislative supremacy side-by-side. Parliament exercises the sovereginty of the UK in its present structure. It is not unique or special in this regard, no different from the US federal government, the French National Assembly and Government, Putin in Russia, or the junta ruling Myanmar. Parliamentary supremacy means nothing more than that it is the final word and authority in your governmental structure. Federal supremacy provides the US government the same thing (but is more diffuse by being deliberately divided into competing sources of federal power). Your parliamentary sovereignty is singled out primarily by resting entirely in one governmental body, your legislature. Pure legislative supremacy is comparatively unusual.
And the thing is, this isn't a side-track. It's your half of what I referred to earlier in you and Hazir insisting on deliberately talking past each other and acknowledging that your positions are primarily as matter of deliberately chosen perspective, looking at the topic from one specific context and ignoring other relevant contexts which still make up the whole.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Not sure why you thought it was a suggestion the UK was unique. I explicitly made comparisons to the US.
As for your straw man "what ifs" well if a junta took over then things would be different, but then we would use different terminologies anyway. However out current sovereignty is given to those we elect so that is an exercise in democracy, even if your fictional alternatives are not.
I don't know about the intentional part, but otherwise your question is valid.
I still find it stupefying to encounter middle school national mythology as someone's absolute truth.
Congratulations America
Whereas your primary school international mythology is superior?
I must have missed something. The OP questioned legal precedents, and legislative authorities, right?
I have no idea what's going on with Elton John and his spouse in English courts.....but what I do know is that Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker was funded by a billionaire PayPal founder. I'm surprised when people act surprised that for-profit lawyers influence legislation.
There was nothing straw man about it. It's not a "what if", it's an illustrative example of how sovereignty has jack-all to do with democracy. You keep conflating sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy, they're not the same thing at all. Sovereignty applies to the country, and while yes, it does involve the consent of the governed, that consent doesn't have to be explicitly expressed and can even be out and out coerced. All that you need for soveriegnty is the acknowledgement of the people being acted on behalf of, and of other countries, that yes you are acting in their name and on their behalf, even if they don't like it and don't want it. Active resistance interferes with sovereignty, but it's the only thing that does. And we wouldn't be using different terminology for these illustrative examples. Myanmar is a sovereign state even though it is controlled by an unelected junta, and that junta most certainly is speaking for the people of the country, even the dissenters. There is no difference between their sovereignty, your sovereignty, or that of Nicaragua or Ghana. Your state is sovereign. Your parliament is not. It's just the body which stands at the top of the hierarchies in your state when it comes to exercising that sovereignty in your governmental system. Parliamentary sovereignty is a bad term because it has nothing to do with sovereignty and that's why everyone else doesn't use it, we use the term parliamentary supremacy (or legislative supremacy if we're talking about a similar/identical body that uses a different label than "parliament").
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Gosh, I wish you'd posted that synopsis before I started a thread on national vs global governance.
Gosh, I wish you'd posted that synopsis before I started a thread on national vs global governance.
Don't worry about it, I remember that no one paid the slightest attention to that thread of yours.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Hey, Fuzzy....when have you ever started a thread? Don't worry about it, some people just can't ask questions or pose dilemmas for debate and discussion.
Very rarely. And yes, some people just can't do it. You for instance. I elect not to do it, whereas you try and constantly fail.Hey, Fuzzy....when have you ever started a thread? Don't worry about it, some people just can't ask questions or pose dilemmas for debate and discussion.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
But I try. Even if I fail, at least I've tried. You don't even try, so stop acting like your smug superiority is a good thing.
I'm not the one who decided to make an irrelevant interjection to try and start something. If I had wanted to participate in that pointless thread of yours, even if I had talked about sovereignty, you wouldn't have understood it and wouldn't be interested in understanding it, preferring to march on with whatever deliberately myopic opinions and perspective you'd settled on when you started the thread.But I try. Even if I fail, at least I've tried. You don't even try, so stop acting like your smug superiority is a good thing.
Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 05-27-2016 at 05:37 AM.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You are using an artificially restrictive definition that does not match the meaning ascribed to it by the likes of John Stuart Mill and others.
Even then you are failing to come to the conclusion of your own definition. "All that you need for soveriegnty is the acknowledgement of the people being acted on behalf of, and of other countries, that yes you are acting in their name and on their behalf, even if they don't like it and don't want it." Does Parliament have the acknowledgement of British subjects and other countries, that yes they are acting in our name and on our behalf even if we don't like it or don't want it? Yes.
You're ignoring the first part of what I said, the section right before what you quoted. "Sovereignty applies to the country." Parliament, a dictator, a theocratic authority, they are the instruments by which it is expressed. I don't give a rat's ass how JSM loosely described it several centuries ago (and frankly, if you wanted a philosopher from the Age of Enlightment to describe it, you'd be better off looking to Rousseau. He's the one who actually spoke on point wrt the idea you're trying to express), we're talking about law and contemporary national and international systems here.
It has nothing to do with you being a democracy, nor does it have anything to do with your misleadingly phrased "parliamentary sovereignty."
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You are creating a tautology. You are insisting that sovereignty applies to the country simply because you define it as applying to the country.
That doesn't even make sense because actually as everyone else has already pointed out the EU as an international organisation has some sovereignty despite not being a country. So your definition does not work in the real world.
Incidentally I picked JSM precisely because he didn't simply agree with what I was saying, but was giving another interpretation. But then I'm not the one trying to create artificial restrictions.
To an extent I am, because possessing soveriegnty is pretty much the gold standard for whether an entity is actually a country or not. Countries which can't maintain internal sovereignty are the definition of failed states. Here's the thing. Definitions are frequently tautological. They're allowed to be, they're not logic exercises.
Does it have sovereignty though? This whole thread is because you are misusing your term. You are applying to another context altogether (one which might be common English, particularly UK English, even if it doesn't mesh with the technical term), one where it's just a synonym for terms like supremacy, and then conflating it with the one which actually applies here, the authority of a state to govern itself which is how it is used in legal theory. Legal theory provides the controlling usage since we're talking about jurisprudence. Maybe I was wrong earlier when I said that both you and Hazir were being deliberate in your behavior. Maybe you really are Lewkish yourself and just can't recognize context or the possibility of multiple perspectives/usages which don't conform to your colloquial ones.That doesn't even make sense because actually as everyone else has already pointed out the EU as an international organisation has some sovereignty despite not being a country. So your definition does not work in the real world.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't rule out the possibility of multiple usages, you are insisting your definition is the only one. That is despite my definition not only being in common usage but the actual definition.
While your definition exists it is not the only definition. Indeed it isn't even the PRIMARY definition. Parliament meets the definition of both sovereign (it is "a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority") and having sovereignty (it meets both definitions 1 and 3). While your definition is there too as number 5. I don't deny your definition exists, but mine does too. So you are being Lewkish if you refuse to accept other technical definitions and insist on your own usage.
I didn't say it was the only one, I said it was the relevant one, the one that applies to the context of this topic, the requirements of the ECHR on privacy protection through the jurisprudence of court rulings interpreting governmental acts. Which has not one goddamn bit to do with whether the acts in question arise from a democratic body or from Ghengis Khan.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote