Ask the Speaker II

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Given it wasn't actually in the Constitution as presented at that time then I would suggest not.
    But it had been passed well before then. And nevity of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law as it were.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But it had been passed well before then. And nevity of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law as it were.
    The law does have to be published though.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The law does have to be published though.
    Indeed and it was, just like how the opposition coalitions amendment was being followed without being added.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Indeed and it was, just like how the opposition coalitions amendment was being followed without being added.
    But this was passed in 2010, so long ago that few people if any remembered its passing when the current government was formed.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    But this was passed in 2010, so long ago that few people if any remembered its passing when the current government was formed.
    Agreed, obviously it's your call at the end of the day but I do feel that it applies. Anyone could have found it in 20 minutes if they looked.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Agreed, obviously it's your call at the end of the day but I do feel that it applies. Anyone could have found it in 20 minutes if they looked.
    It doesn't apply to the current government whatever the case because the Nat Libs did not "withdraw", they "were withdrawn" – passive not active.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It doesn't apply to the current government whatever the case because the Nat Libs did not "withdraw", they "were withdrawn" – passive not active.
    I'd say that it is in the sport of the amendment in that case but I don't mind. However will this section be added and be actionable in the future?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'd say that it is in the sport of the amendment in that case but I don't mind. However will this section be added and be actionable in the future?
    No I don't believe it is in the spirit of the amendment – the Nat Libs did not make a conscious choice to withdraw, they were removed from government.

    Yes it will.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But it had been passed well before then. And nevity of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law as it were.
    Unless your Hilary Clinton!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No I don't believe it is in the spirit of the amendment – the Nat Libs did not make a conscious choice to withdraw, they were removed from government.

    Yes it will.
    A withdraw is a withdraw but I won't argue anymore.
    (Original post by adam9317)
    Unless your Hilary Clinton!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The FBI thing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Nat Libs didn't withdraw, but were removed.
    It depends on how you define 'withdraw', as it isn't defined in the amendment. I would say that they withdrew by not posting in their subforum for a month and thereby getting themselves removed and disbanded.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    No I don't believe it is in the spirit of the amendment – the Nat Libs did not make a conscious choice to withdraw, they were removed from government.

    Yes it will.
    It can't actually be proven that they didn't make a conscious choice to withdraw by means of getting themselves disbanded and removed, though, obviously that didn't happen but in theory it could have done.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Let's not be partisan here, Fez's interpretation seems like the sensible one to me. Hydeman was still active at the time and didn't choose to leave the government.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    It can't actually be proven that they didn't make a conscious choice to withdraw by means of getting themselves disbanded and removed, though, obviously that didn't happen but in theory it could have done.
    That's a rather extreme way to go about withdrawing from a coalition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Saracen's Fez I suggest that you declare A68 void since it's been ignored for years, otherwise it would have a major retroactive impact on events we can't change.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Saracen's Fez I suggest that you declare A68 void since it's been ignored for years, otherwise it would have a major retroactive impact on events we can't change.
    I won't void it, but it certainly will not be applied retroactively. No current or former government that was ruled legitimate is no longer legitimate and it only comes into effect from now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    That's a rather extreme way to go about withdrawing from a coalition.
    It's extreme, yes, but it's still a possible way.
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Saracen's Fez I suggest that you declare A68 void since it's been ignored for years, otherwise it would have a major retroactive impact on events we can't change.
    Just because a rule has been broken in the past doesn't make it void. It should now be added to its rightful place and applied from henceforth until and unless it is repealed like all the other rules.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Saracen's Fez I suggest that you declare A68 void since it's been ignored for years, otherwise it would have a major retroactive impact on events we can't change.
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Just because a rule has been broken in the past doesn't make it void. It should now be added to its rightful place and applied from henceforth until and unless it is repealed like all the other rules.
    I think it's worth remembering here the similarities with the constitutionality of the mass PM.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Please send the seat sharing amendment to the Division Lobby.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I won't void it, but it certainly will not be applied retroactively. No current or former government that was ruled legitimate is no longer legitimate and it only comes into effect from now.
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I think it's worth remembering here the similarities with the constitutionality of the mass PM.
    Fair enough, you're correct.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Just because a rule has been broken in the past doesn't make it void. It should now be added to its rightful place and applied from henceforth until and unless it is repealed like all the other rules.
    Well, how about historical laws which are clearly outdated but formally in effect, such as that „in Scotland, turning someone away if they knock on your door and require the use of your loo” is illegal (perhaps it's just a widespread hoax but it should suffice as a hypothetical scenario; another source here). If such a law is suddenly rediscovered, should it be enforced until it is formally repealed?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 2, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.