Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    It should come as no surprise that the only comments by the government on the bill are "meh" and one of "no law was broken, £7.5bn is more than £10bn" or "it's okay we broke the law because we don't do it much".
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Abstain. I see the point created by this motion, but I do not believe this is the way to go about it - rather, I feel it should be the job of the Speaker to simply declare the offending parts of S08 invalid due to being ultra vires. If the Government wishes to legislate to this effect, it must do so by Act of Parliament.
    I do appreciate your very educated opinion TDA. It's a tricky one - I'm not sure there's precedent.

    I would be very interested to hear the Prime Minister's view on this (Saracen's Fez) and that of the Opposition Leader and leader of the party that proposed this motion (Life_peer).

    I am inclined to agree with TDA, as whilst there was an opportunity to put the SOI to vote, SOIs are only supposed to be put forward on matters for which no Act of Parliament is necessary.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I do appreciate your very educated opinion TDA. It's a tricky one - I'm not sure there's precedent.

    I would be very interested to hear the Prime Minister's view on this (Saracen's Fez) and that of the Opposition Leader and leader of the party that proposed this motion (Life_peer).

    I am inclined to agree with TDA, as whilst there was an opportunity to put the SOI to vote, SOIs are only supposed to be put forward on matters for which no Act of Parliament is necessary.
    Strictly what S08 is intending to do would not require an act of Parliament, probably not in the real world supposing it were done (which it wouldn't be,and certainly not within our realm based on the precedent set by the budget. Of course, that all ignores the illegality supposing it were enacted.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Strictly what S08 is intending to do would not require an act of Parliament, probably not in the real world supposing it were done (which it wouldn't be,and certainly not within our realm based on the precedent set by the budget. Of course, that all ignores the illegality supposing it were enacted.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was under impression that the argument being made is that the Foreign Spending (2%) Act would have to be amended/repealed for S08 to be enacted and so it needs an Act?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I was under impression that the argument being made is that the Foreign Spending (2%) Act would have to be amended/repealed for S08 to be enacted and so it needs an Act?
    That is one way of making it legal, but regardless of whether that is done or not actions contrary to the law took place.

    The request being made is for a statement to be made in accordance with the RL Act, and either for HMT to provide the funds to be in compliance, or for an amendment to be passed to make the current spending legal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That is one way of making it legal, but regardless of whether that is done or not actions contrary to the law took place.

    The request being made is for a statement to be made in accordance with the RL Act, and either for HMT to provide the funds to be in compliance, or for an amendment to be passed to make the current spending legal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I see, fair enough then.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Abstain. I see the point created by this motion, but I do not believe this is the way to go about it - rather, I feel it should be the job of the Speaker to simply declare the offending parts of S08 invalid due to being ultra vires. If the Government wishes to legislate to this effect, it must do so by Act of Parliament.
    It's worth noting that the content of the motion does go further than dealing with merely S08, both the ultra vires and otherwise unlawful elements.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I will be asking the Chancellor to review funding arrangements to ensure the law is complied with.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I will be asking the Chancellor to review funding arrangements to ensure the law is complied with.
    So we can expect the motion to pass with ease and at least partly be complied with (your SoS ID seems somewhat adverse to doing more work after their errors)?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I do appreciate your very educated opinion TDA. It's a tricky one - I'm not sure there's precedent.

    I would be very interested to hear the Prime Minister's view on this (Saracen's Fez) and that of the Opposition Leader and leader of the party that proposed this motion (Life_peer).

    I am inclined to agree with TDA, as whilst there was an opportunity to put the SOI to vote, SOIs are only supposed to be put forward on matters for which no Act of Parliament is necessary.
    I don't believe it should be the Speaker's job or competence to declare parts of any statements, motions, or legislation invalid. What I think the Speaker should do is to oversee the proceedings and ensure that the offending party rectifies such inconsistencies in a reasonable time span.

    In this case, I'd like the motion to proceed to a vote and if successful, annul S08. I'd also like to entrust Jammy Duel with making all further decisions regarding this motion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I don't believe it should be the Speaker's job or competence to declare parts of any statements, motions, or legislation invalid. What I think the Speaker should do is to oversee the proceedings and ensure that the offending party rectifies such inconsistencies in a reasonable time span.

    In this case, I'd like the motion to proceed to a vote and if successful, annul S08. I'd also like to entrust Jammy Duel with making all further decisions regarding this motion.
    Not that there are really any other decisions at this point other than maybe withdrawal if it is possible to withdraw during division and the government act worryingly fast

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I don't believe it should be the Speaker's job or competence to declare parts of any statements, motions, or legislation invalid. What I think the Speaker should do is to oversee the proceedings and ensure that the offending party rectifies such inconsistencies in a reasonable time span.

    In this case, I'd like the motion to proceed to a vote and if successful, annul S08. I'd also like to entrust Jammy Duel with making all further decisions regarding this motion.
    Besides when items are repetitions of what's already been passed for example. Points of order and so on.

    Understood. :yy:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Besides when items are repetitions of what's already been passed for example. Points of order and so on.

    Understood. :yy:
    Indeed, I didn't consider such cases but have nothing against that, of course. Thank you.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So we can expect the motion to pass with ease and at least partly be complied with (your SoS ID seems somewhat adverse to doing more work after their errors)?
    In the absence of a Supreme Court to make the decision I will look to press forward with a statement to ensure the policy is compliant with the requirements set out in he Foreign Spending Act.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    In the absence of a Supreme Court to make the decision I will look to press forward with a statement to ensure the policy is compliant with the requirements set out in he Foreign Spending Act.
    The lack of supreme court is why I made the suggestion to formalise such prayers and make them binding, in effect the whole house is the court, although it does allow prayers for other reasons.

    An alternative could be to establish such a court with one representitive nominated by each party, requiring approval by the Speaker given people should try to be neutral, with the speaker/deputy having the casting vote if necessary and keeping proceedings controlled if non members are allowed to comment, or acting as their conduit otherwise. Naturally this is the much more complex option for something hopefully not often needed, hence why I would personally prefer formalising prayers to annul, as well as being generally more useful.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That is one way of making it legal, but regardless of whether that is done or not actions contrary to the law took place.

    The request being made is for a statement to be made in accordance with the RL Act, and either for HMT to provide the funds to be in compliance, or for an amendment to be passed to make the current spending legal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    IRL the Budget cannot legislate contrary to any Act of Parliament. The Chancellor does not have that executive power. No Act like the 2% Act exists IRL, and this is why they don't have similar problems.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    IRL the Budget cannot legislate contrary to any Act of Parliament. The Chancellor does not have that executive power. No Act like the 2% Act exists IRL, and this is why they don't have similar problems.
    Actually such an act does and is cited

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Actually such an act does and is cited

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    My mistake. In which case, the IRL budget would not be able legislatively to violate the International Development Act.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: March 4, 2016
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

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.