Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Treaties and Parliament

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby tulkvmoxhay » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:35 pm

As I said in the first post
In Constitutional terms, is Parliament attempting a usurpation of the convention that the Executive negotiates treaties and Parliament ratifies?
tulkvmoxhay
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby atticus » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:37 pm

That question (including its underlying premise) has been dealt with. It seems, however, that other questions have now been put on the table ...
tulkvmoxhay wrote:It's about how future treaties can be safely arrived at if Parliamentarians take control of the substantive formation of treaties and then bicker from self-interest over i and ts.

Which branch of government should be engaged in treaty-making and should Parliament's role solely be scrutiny ex post facto as the Act requires? These were the questions on the table...
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19867
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:24 pm

What Act prevents Parliament from exercising scrutiny of the Government's policy to ex post facto events? It is a fundamental part of our constitution that Parliament cannot bind itself, nor can the courts question any proceedings in Parliament. It is not the Government's position that the Commons' requests are unconstitutional.

I would query whether the convention that the executive negotiates treaties and Parliament ratifies them is a constitutional convention of a kind to fetter the sovereignty of Parliament. Indeed I would query whether it is possible for any such convention to do so.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6340
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby tulkvmoxhay » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:42 pm

Don't they posit the same argument? The first was simply a binary question as to whether that was a true statement of a change to the convention as it was; the second is open-ended and is prompting for exposition from those with professional constitutional knowledge on likely future conduct.
tulkvmoxhay
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:49 pm

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby dls » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:47 pm

I would query whether the convention that the executive negotiates treaties and Parliament ratifies them is a constitutional convention of a kind to fetter the sovereignty of Parliament. Indeed I would query whether it is possible for any such convention to do so.


I am not at all so sure. These are two very big beasts. The separation of powers is not the simple heart of our constitution, but that principle accepts entirely that Parliamentary sovereignty is very proper limited. Power is at its best exercised when it is divided. It is divided between the executive, parliament and the judiciary. It works only because and for so long as each limb respects the duties and powers of the others.

The making of treaties has always been an act of the executive. Much about with it at your severe peril.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12262
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:56 pm

dls wrote:
The UK constitution is flexible, and sometimes evolves quite quickly. For example . .


. .and teh way that parliamentarians have become ready to chicken out of difficult decisions by holding referenda.


Except that the way they've done it is unconstitutional: parliament must still make the decision themselves and take responsibility for it.
Which, as far as I can tell, they have not yet done.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10083
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Treaties and Parliament

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:09 pm

dls wrote:It works only because and for so long as each limb respects the duties and powers of the others.

Which is where ours have failed.
We have seen a demonstration of the respect that the executive has for the judiciary in their prompt and thorough condemnation of the traitorous newspaper reports, and they were within a whisker of being actually found in contempt of parliament: almost the exact opposite of respect.
I cannot properly comment on the reciprocal respects, but I expect both parliament and the judiciary to afford the executive the respect it deserves...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10083
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Previous

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron