Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

if the Conservaives get into power could they reverse devolution Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No. Devolution is the only way they'll get a say in Scotland and Wales.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    According to what lawful authority...? The Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy sort of directly contradicts this.
    But why would they do so?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    But why would they do so?
    I don't really care about the topic or devolution very much at all. I was just interested in the suggestion that there's actually a legal principle that referendums bind Parliament. (There isn't.)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    But why would they do so?
    could and would are different questions.

    Bagation didn't sugget they would.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    could and would are different questions.
    The notion that they could do it is surely framed by a sense that they would do it otherwise the entire notion of could is theoretical. Only the Conservatives would have reason to scrap devolution which is why I asked a raving Tory (Bagré) why they would.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I don't really care about the topic or devolution very much at all. I was just interested in the suggestion that there's actually a legal principle that referendums bind Parliament. (There isn't.)
    Well, it would be a massive snub wouldn't it. We gave you the people the power to ask for the thing but when it comes to getting rid of it, we don't have to ask you so giant raspberry. I don't think it quite works like that in practice however legally correct it might be.The could and would of the situation is surely mediated through expectation just as much as your average constitutional textbook.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    The notion that they could do it is surely framed by a sense that they would do it otherwise the entire notion of could is theoretical. Only the Conservatives would have reason to scrap devolution which is why I asked a raving Tory (Bagré) why they would.
    Well, it was a theoretical statement so I replied with a theoretical question as I'm interested in the theory.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well, it would be a massive snub wouldn't it. We gave you the people the power to ask for the thing but when it comes to getting rid of it, we don't have to ask you so giant raspberry. I don't think it quite works like that in practice however legally correct it might be.The could and would of the situation is surely mediated through expectation just as much as your average constitutional textbook.
    You are of course, right. If Wales declared independence without going through Westminster process it would be constitutionally unlawful. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't either be a. ) right or b. ) possible. Constitutional theory in Britain really only is theory, I guess.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If we separate theory from reality, then yes, in theory any government can reverse the laws of a previous one by passing an Act of Parliament with the help of loyal MPs and peers.

    In reality, given that the Conservatives have performed badly against the other political parties in Wales and Scotland, aside from the issues of funding, defence and Scottish & Welsh MPs voting on legislation that affects England only (normally anything to do with local government and related issues - e.g. parts of education), I can imagine a Conservative administration being quite happy not to have to worry about such issues. "That is a matter for the Scottish Executive/Welsh Assembly Government" = "Not my problem guv."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    You are of course, right. If Wales declared independence without going through Westminster process it would be constitutionally unlawful. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't either be a. ) right or b. ) possible. Constitutional theory in Britain really only is theory, I guess.
    Subtle difference when it comes to independence: Wales didn't have a parliament and was invaded and conquered. The Acts of Union that brought Wales and England together were not popularly mandated so in a sense, the people have Wales have every right to rebel against the cruel oppressive overlords from across the way. :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Subtle difference when it comes to independence: Wales didn't have a parliament and was invaded and conquered. The Acts of Union that brought Wales and England together were not popularly mandated so in a sense, the people have Wales have every right to rebel against the cruel oppressive overlords from across the way.
    Oh, what a headache constitutional law is!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Oh, what a headache constitutional law is!
    But it's brilliant!

    sorry to cut in, I'm leaving now...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Oh, what a headache constitutional law is!
    Because it's all founded on the basis of that **** liberal notion of property and the rights that stem from it. Britain has a constitution just not a written one so therefore our constitutional settlements in Westminster terms are both fluid and static (since they're based on precedent) however when it comes to Scotland and Wales there is a constitutional settlement I would argue on the basis of the Referendums and acts such as the Government of Wales Act (2006) which puts into law the basis of the transfer of powers from Westminster to Cardiff. The GOW Act also gave the Assembly the sole right to trigger a vote on more powers, it couldn't be imposed by Westminster which challenges the notion that Westminster has sovereignty certainly in the practical sense.

    Without the practical, as I tell social scientists all the bloody time, theory is just ******** on a plate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Because it's all founded on the basis of that **** liberal notion of property and the rights that stem from it. Britain has a constitution just not a written one so therefore our constitutional settlements in Westminster terms are both fluid and static (since they're based on precedent) however when it comes to Scotland and Wales there is a constitutional settlement I would argue on the basis of the Referendums and acts such as the Government of Wales Act (2006) which puts into law the basis of the transfer of powers from Westminster to Cardiff. The GOW Act also gave the Assembly the sole right to trigger a vote on more powers, it couldn't be imposed by Westminster which challenges the notion that Westminster has sovereignty certainly in the practical sense.

    Without the practical, as I tell social scientists all the bloody time, theory is just ******** on a plate.
    Huh, it's interesting. The whole reason I got involved with this, as I said, was that someone suggested that our uncodified constitution had a doctrine of referendums being binding, which is totally the opposite of our current system.

    It's difficult to argue in our codified constitution when something becomes a principle and when it doesn't, but we can look at what we already have. We had Parliamentary Supremacy. Do referendums that can't be overturned by Parliament contradict this theory? Yes, they do. Does the recognition of this theory mean that under common law implied repeal rules, Parliamentary sovereignty is now... amended? I don't know. It would certainly be a very subtle revolution if that was the case.

    It's true that constitutional settlements came about because of referendums, yep. Personally I am not too concerned with the Union and if Wales or Scotland voted to secede I would back them all the way. Ha, and if they were refused, I'd probably back their right to armed rebellion, too. I believe in the right to self-government, funnily enough. (but I really do wonder that if you really back Welsh independence how you can simultaenously be a Eurocrat?)

    L i b would be useful now

    I personally don't care as much for what the law is, as what the law ought to be, but you have to study the first to know the latterl.

    To be fair, I don't consider myself a social scientists. Theoretics are extremely important in law because it gives you a model on which you can base future possible decisions consistently with your previous decisions.

    And yes Anthony, it is great
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Huh, it's interesting. The whole reason I got involved with this, as I said, was that someone suggested that our codified constitution had a doctrine of referendums being binding, which is totally the opposite of our current system.

    It's difficult to argue in our codified constitution when something becomes a principle and when it doesn't, but we can look at what we already have. We had Parliamentary Supremacy. Do referendums that can't be overturned by Parliament contradict this theory? Yes, they do. Does the recognition of this theory mean that under common law implied repeal rules, Parliamentary sovereignty is now... amended? I don't know. It would certainly be a very subtle revolution if that was the case.

    It's true that constitutional settlements came about because of referendums, yep. Personally I am not too concerned with the Union and if Wales or Scotland voted to secede I would back them all the way. Ha, and if they were refused, I'd probably back their right to armed rebellion, too. I believe in the right to self-government, funnily enough. (but I really do wonder that if you really back Welsh independence how you can simultaenously be a Eurocrat?)

    L i b would be useful now

    I personally don't care as much for what the law is, as what the law ought to be, but you have to study the first to know the latterl.

    To be fair, I don't consider myself a social scientists. Theoretics are extremely important in law because it gives you a model on which you can base future possible decisions consistently with your previous decisions.

    And yes Anthony, it is great
    *uncodified :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaykiie)
    *uncodified
    Yeah, that made me look rather silly...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    (but I really do wonder that if you really back Welsh independence how you can simultaenously be a Eurocrat?)
    Because, as a nation of 3 million people, Europe offers us a voice on a stage which we can contribute fully on; Wales would be far too small to be meaningfully part of the UN but it can bring its own views into Europe - to be fair we do now anyway with the Council of the Regions - but it would be done without having to go through Westminster. I like Europe because of its melting away of national boundaries (internationalist remember!) though I am at the same deeply troubled by it in some respects. I take the view that you can only change Europe by being part of it. In terms of the UK: we'll never change the views of some of the English so, it's time to listen to ourselves - hence the devolution.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Yeah, that made me look rather silly...
    :p: not at all
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Because, as a nation of 3 million people, Europe offers us a voice on a stage which we can contribute fully on; Wales would be far too small to be meaningfully part of the UN but it can bring its own views into Europe - to be fair we do now anyway with the Council of the Regions - but it would be done without having to go through Westminster. I like Europe because of its melting away of national boundaries (internationalist remember!) though I am at the same deeply troubled by it in some respects. I take the view that you can only change Europe by being part of it. In terms of the UK: we'll never change the views of some of the English so, it's time to listen to ourselves - hence the devolution.
    Fair enough. In my opinion, united as Great Britain, the constitutent nations (and if there are political inequalities they should be levelled out so we can survive C21 together) of the UK are capable of mediating with the world's up and coming foreign powers; which are Resurgent Russia and Modernising India in my opinion. Alone as England, or Wales, I don't think we can do that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Fair enough. In my opinion, united as Great Britain, the constitutent nations (and if there are political inequalities they should be levelled out so we can survive C21 together) of the UK are capable of mediating with the world's up and coming foreign powers; which are Resurgent Russia and Modernising India in my opinion. Alone as England, or Wales, I don't think we can do that.
    I know we can't do it alone but I don't think we should. If the last decade has taught us anything it is that we pursue the expansion of democracy by arms at our peril, at the loss of hundreds of soldiers, and a gaping hole in public finances. It's not a terrible surprise really that we are limping out of recession having fought 5 wars since 1997 along with everything else. We mediate Russia and China through taking our place in Europe and helping to transform Europe into an example not the reactionary neo-liberal aftermath it is at the moment. If it takes the break up of the UK to achieve that then so be it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: February 6, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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