Anon; 1) click 'other' when commenting and put a nicname in so I've got a vague idea if you've been here before, and it feels like a conversation?
2) I'm not a lawyer, so I instead trust the opinions of those that are. Clifford Chance, one of the biggest law firms in London, say it's not enough. The Law Faculty of the University of Cambridge say it's not enough.
I have a choice, believe them, or believe this Govt. I chose to believe them, as they've made a strong argument, the govt hasn't.
Perhaps the issue here is one of feasibility of parliament to act?
Let's just suppose for a moment that parliament *does* retain the rights to scrutiny and veto. Could it be the issue here that parliament would lose its power to *amend* at the same time as any *reasonable powers* to *review*?
If this or the next government begins pushing through legislation at the rate of knots - and with the massive resources of the civil service at its disposal to draft legislation, why wouldn't it? - then how would poor Commons MPs be able to keep up? I find it hard to imagine MPs would have the time to read each amendment put before them. And anyway, what would be the point?
Without any power to amend the legislation, and faced only with a choice of either accepting it (and receiving the accolade "with us") or rejecting it (and being branded "against us" and being deselected at the next election), it would seem to me MPs would be divided and conquered.
4 comments:
When she says "scrutiny and veto" I think Diana Johnson is referring to the following provisions:
"The condition in this subsection is that such a statutory instrument—
(a) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; or
(b) is not to be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Sounds like both Houses need to approve any changes to the law. So why this *isn't* a sufficient safeguard?
Dealt like a true card sharp, anonymous.
Anon; 1) click 'other' when commenting and put a nicname in so I've got a vague idea if you've been here before, and it feels like a conversation?
2) I'm not a lawyer, so I instead trust the opinions of those that are. Clifford Chance, one of the biggest law firms in London, say it's not enough. The Law Faculty of the University of Cambridge say it's not enough.
I have a choice, believe them, or believe this Govt. I chose to believe them, as they've made a strong argument, the govt hasn't.
Perhaps the issue here is one of feasibility of parliament to act?
Let's just suppose for a moment that parliament *does* retain the rights to scrutiny and veto. Could it be the issue here that parliament would lose its power to *amend* at the same time as any *reasonable powers* to *review*?
If this or the next government begins pushing through legislation at the rate of knots - and with the massive resources of the civil service at its disposal to draft legislation, why wouldn't it? - then how would poor Commons MPs be able to keep up? I find it hard to imagine MPs would have the time to read each amendment put before them. And anyway, what would be the point?
Without any power to amend the legislation, and faced only with a choice of either accepting it (and receiving the accolade "with us") or rejecting it (and being branded "against us" and being deselected at the next election), it would seem to me MPs would be divided and conquered.
Post a Comment